The Text of the Hebrew Bible: From the Rabbis to Masoretes 9783666550645, 9783525550649, 9783647550640

Citation preview

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Journal of Ancient Judaism. Supplements

Edited by Armin Lange, Bernard M. Levinson and Vered Noam Advisory Board: Katell Berthelot (University of Aix-Marseille), George Brooke (University of Manchester), Jonathan Ben Dov (University of Haifa), Beate Ego (University of Osnabrück), Esther Eshel (Bar-Ilan University), Heinz-Josef Fabry (University of Bonn), Steven Fraade (Yale University), Maxine L. Grossman (University of Maryland), Christine Hayes (Yale University), Catherine Hezser (University of London), Jodi Magness (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Carol Meyers (Duke University), Eric Meyers (Duke University), Hillel Newman (University of Haifa), Christophe Nihan (University of Lausanne), Lawrence H. Schiffman (New York University), Konrad Schmid (University of Zurich), Adiel Schremer (Bar-Ilan University), Michael Segal (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Aharon Shemesh (Bar-Ilan University), Günter Stemberger (University of Vienna), Kristin De Troyer (University of St Andrews), Azzan Yadin (Rutgers University) Volume 13

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Elvira Mart†n-Contreras / Lorena Miralles-Maci‚ (eds.)

The Text of the Hebrew Bible From the Rabbis to the Masoretes

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-55064-9 ISBN 978-3-647-55064-0 (E-book) Ó 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Cover image: Design by Jorge Morales-de Castro Printing and binding: CPI buchbuecher.de GmbH, Birkach Printed in Germany

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Contents

List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

Elvira Mart†n-Contreras and Lorena Miralles-Maci‚ Interdisciplinary Perspectives for the Study of the Text of the Hebrew Bible: Open Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

I. The Preservation and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible Emanuel Tov The Myth of the Stabilization of the Text of Hebrew Scripture

. . . . . .

John Van Seters Did the Sopherim Create a Standard Edition of the Hebrew Scriptures?

37

.

47

Arie van der Kooij Standardization or Preservation? Some Comments on the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible in the Light of Josephus and Rabbinic Literature . .

63

Elvira Mart†n-Contreras Rabbinic Ways of Preservation and Transmission of the Biblical Text in the Light of Masoretic Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79

Günter Stemberger Preliminary Notes on Grammar and Orthography in Halakhic Midrashim: Late Additions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

91

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

6

Contents

Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate, Aramaic and Syriac Versions of 1 – 2 Kings vis-—-vis the Masoretic Text and the Greek Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

II. The Masorah and other Approaches to study the Text of the Hebrew Bible Nathan R. Jastram The Severus Scroll and Rabbi Meir’s Torah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Alex Samely Some Literary Features of Midrashic and Masoretic Statements . . . . . . 147 Willem F. Smelik Targum & Masorah. Does Targum Jonathan Follow the ‘Madinhae’ Readings of Ketiv-Qere? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Lea Himmelfarb Does the Tiberian Accentuation System Preserve the Babylonian Accentuation System? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Yosef Ofer Three Enigmatic Notes from the Babylonian Masorah Comparing the Language of the Hebrew Bible and the Mishnah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 David Marcus The Practical Use of the Masorah for the Elucidation of the Story of Samuel’s Birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Bibliography

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

Index of Biblical References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 List of Contributors / Editors

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

List of Abbreviations

1.

Journals, periodicals, major reference works, and series

AB ABD AJEC ANES SS Bib BZAW CBET CBQ DJD DSD EDSS EncJud FBBS FRLANT HALAT HdO HS HUCA JANES JAOS JBL JBQ JBR JCP JJS JPS JQR

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series Biblica Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die altestamentliche Wissentschaft Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Discoveries Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls Encyclopaedia Judaica Facet Books, Biblical Series Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des AT und NT Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament Handbuch der Orientalistik Hebrew Studies Hebrew Union College Annual Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Bible Quarterly Journal of Bible and Religion Jewish and Christian Perspectives Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Publication Society Jewish Quarterly Review

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

8

List of Abbreviations

JQR NS JSJ JSJSup JSS JTS n.s. MEAH MGWJ OBO OTL OTS PAAJR PRSt QHBT RB SOTSM STDJ Sub. Bi. TCAAS TLQ TSAJ VT VTSup WUNT YOS ZAW ZDMG

2.

Jewish Quarterly Review New Supplements Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements to The Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies New Series Miscel‚nea de Estudios Ýrabes y Hebraicos Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Orbis biblicus et orientalis Old Testament Library Old Testament Studies Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research Perspectives in Religious Studies Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text Revue Biblique Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Subsidia biblica Transactions of the Conneticut Academy of Arts and Sciences Temple Law Quarterly Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Yale Oriental Series Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft

Bible Texts, Versions 3

BH BHQ BHS NRSV OG Pes RSV

Biblia Hebraica, eds. R. Kittel – P. Kahle Biblia Hebraica Quinta Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia New Revised Standard Version Old Greek Peshitta ˙ Revised Standard Version

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

List of Abbreviations

3.

Hebrew Bible

Gen Exod Lev Num Deut Josh Judg Ruth 1 – 2 Sam 1 – 2 Kgs 1 – 2 Chr Ezra Neh Esth Job Ps/Pss Prov Qoh Song Isa Jer Lam Ezek Dan Hos Joel Amos Obad Jonah Mic Nah Hab Zeph Hag Zech Mal

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1 – 2 Samuel 1 – 2 Kings 1 – 2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalm/Psalms Proverbs Qoheleth Song of Songs Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

9

10

4.

List of Abbreviations

New Testament

Matt Matthew Mark Mark

5.

Apocrypha and Septuagint

1 – 2 Esd 1 – 2 Esdras 1 – 2 Macc 1 – 2 Maccabees

6.

Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmud Mishnah Tosefta Babylonian Talmud Jerusalem Talmud

Abot Arak AZ Ber BQ Erub Git Hul Ket Mak Makhsh Meg Men Mid Naz Pes Qid RH Sanh Shab Sheq Sot

Abot Arakhin Abodah Zarah Berakhot Baba Qamma Erubin Gittin ˙˙ Hullin ˙ Ketubbot Makkot Makhshirin Megillah Menahot ˙ Middot Nazir Pesahim ˙ Qiddushin Rosh Hashanah Sanhedrin Shabbat Sheqalim Sotah ˙

˘

m. t. b. y.

˘ ˘ ˘

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

List of Abbreviations

7.

Sukkah Ta anit Tamid Temurah Yadayim Yebamot Yoma Zabim Zebahim ˙ Sopherim ˘

Suk Taan Tam Tem Yad Yeb Yoma Zab Zeb Soph

Other Rabbinic Works

ARN GenR LamR LevR Mek MidrPss NumR PesRab PRK QohR RuthR Sifra SifreDeut SifreNum SongR

8.

’Abot de Rabbi Nathan Genesis Rabbah Lamentations Leviticus Rabbah Mekhilta Midrash to Psalms Numbers Rabbah Pesiqta Rabbati Pesiqta de Rab Kahana Qoheleth Rabbah Ruth Rabbah Sifra Sifre Deuteronomy Sifre Numbers Song Rabbah

Targumic Texts

SamTg Samaritan Targum TgJon Targum Pseudo-Jonathan TgOnq Targum Onqelos

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

11

12

9.

List of Abbreviations

Josephus

Ag. Ap. Against Apion Ant. Jewish Antiquities War Jewish War

10.

General Abbreviations

ca. chp e. g. et al. f./ff. id. K L LXX Ms/s MT NT OT passim pl. Q Sam. Pent. sg. Tg v./vv. vs. Vulg

circa chapter exempli gratia, for example et alii, and others and the following idem, the same ketiv Ms Leningrad Septuagint Manuscript/s Masoretic Text New Testament Old Testament here and there plural qere Samaritan Pentateuch singular Targum verse/s versus Vulgata

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Preface

Many questions shrouding the history of how the Hebrew Bible text was fixed and transmitted have not yet been answered. In spite of the various working hypotheses, some major issues still remain unsettled and new ones have also emerged. In recent years, the project “The Role of Rabbinic Literature in the Textual Transmission of the Hebrew Bible” (Ref.: HUM2007 – 60109 and Ref.: FFI2011 – 22888) within the R& D Programme of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICCIN), has focused on some of these questions, attempting to illuminate the processes involved in that history. Aware that the history of the Hebrew Bible text is studied in different areas (textual criticism and Rabbinic and Masoretic studies) and has traditionally been researched according to diverse periods and following different methodologies, and having identified some of the problems resulting from the lack of ‘interrelation’ in this field, one of the purposes of this project is to lay the foundation for the creation of an adequate space for dialogue among scholars devoted to the history of the Hebrew Bible text in various research areas. Indeed, as a contribution to this dialogue, the international symposium “Fixing, Transmitting and Preserving: Early Jewish and Rabbinic Literature in the History of the Hebrew Bible,” held in Madrid on 20 – 21 September 2010 was organised within the framework of this project. To encourage free-flowing and fruitful dialogue in that symposium, some questions were formulated beforehand and categorised into three areas: 1) Rabbinic literature and fixing the Bible text Who were the sopherim (scribes)? Were they the editors of ancient texts who aimed to standardise the written form of the Bible text? Did they carry out textual criticism work? What relationship existed between the sopherim and the Rabbis? 2) Rabbinic literature and transmitting the Bible text What were the methods and mechanisms of textual transmission? What role did the Rabbis play in the transmission process? How can Rabbinic literature be used to study the textual history of the Hebrew Bible?

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

14

Preface

3) Rabbinic literature and preserving the Bible text What is the relationship between Rabbinic literature and the Masorah? What is the function of pre-masoretic notes in Rabbinic literature? What is the history of the Masorah? Was the transmission oral or written? Did the Masorah really appear five centuries after the Bible text was fixed? This book, The Text of the Hebrew Bible from the Rabbis to the Masoretes, offers some attempts to answer these questions. In addition to the works presented by most of the authors who took part in the symposium, the decision was taken to include other contributions developed in different contexts in order to enrich the discussion about the history of the Hebrew Bible text. Even so, it was unfortunately impossible to include each and every one of the potential proposals in this debate in only one volume. The book is divided into two sections. The first, which focuses on the preservation and transmission of the Hebrew Bible, includes studies by Emanuel Tov (“The Myth of the Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew Scripture”), John van Seters (“Did the Sopherim Create a Standard Edition of the Hebrew Scriptures?”), Arie van der Kooij (“Standardization or Preservation? Some Comments on the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible in the Light of Josephus and Rabbinic Literature”), Elvira Mart†n-Contreras (“Rabbinic Ways of Preservation and Transmission of the Biblical Text in the Light of Masoretic Sources”), Günter Stemberger (“Preliminary Notes on Grammar and Orthography in Halakhic Midrashim: Late Additions?”) and Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano (“The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate, Aramaic and Syriac Versions of 1 – 2 Kings vis-—-vis the Masoretic Text and the Greek Version”). The second section consists of different approaches to the study of the text of the Hebrew Bible presented by Nathan Jastram (“The Severus Scroll and Rabbi Meir’s Torah”), Alexander Samely (“Some Literary Features of Midrashic and Masoretic Statements”), Willem F. Smelik (“Targum & Masorah. Does Targum Jonathan Follow the ‘Madinhae’ Readings of Ketiv-Qere?”), Lea Himmelfarb (“Does the Tiberian Accentuation System Preserve the Babylonian Accentuation System?”), Yosef Ofer, (“Three Enigmatic Notes from the Babylonian Masorah Comparing the Language of the Hebrew Bible and the Mishnah”) and David Marcus (“The Practical Use of the Masorah for the Elucidation of the Story of Samuel’s Birth”). Opening the book is the chapter, “Interdisciplinary Perspectives for the Study of the Text of the Hebrew Bible: Open Questions”, based on a series of topics, ideas and proposals resulting from the discussions that took place in the international symposium. The editors selected those they considered most innovative and constructive to provide continuity to the debate and future reconsideration of the study of the history of the Bible text. Issues affecting various

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

15

Preface

discussions or the general field of research took priority, regardless of the specific details of each paper. Although, as mentioned, the ideas suggested provided the starting point, the final product is entirely our responsibility. Its content and structure are our choice, which does not mean it is not arbitrary. To highlight the novelty of the proposals, we decided to classify them with regard to the state of the question. This is presented very briefly with some bibliographical suggestions to provide the interested reader with more information. The aim therefore is not to be exhaustive in the treatment of the subject or bibliography, but simply to offer some guidance instead. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to all the participants at this very thought-provoking symposium, including among them the scientific committee, members of the research project itself, CSIC members and members of the various universities involved that provided such useful suggestions and encouraged us from the early preparation stages of the symposium through to the production of this book. Without their efforts and willingness, the success of the symposium would not have been possible nor would this publication. Finally, we would also like to thank the editors of the Supplements to the Journal of Ancient Judaism for accepting the manuscript and giving us the opportunity to present this volume. The Editors

Elvira Mart†n-Contreras and Lorena Miralles-Maci‚

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Elvira Mart†n-Contreras and Lorena Miralles-Maci‚ ILC – CSIC and University of Granada, Spain

Interdisciplinary Perspectives for the Study of the Text of the Hebrew Bible: Open Questions

I The study of the biblical text has been characterized by the multiple approaches that have been used over the years. Since ancient times, the standardization, transmission and preservation of the text have been the fundamental objectives of those who have approached this area of study. Interest in the text of the Bible began in the first centuries of our era, when the Church Fathers compared the biblical Hebrew and the different Greek versions of the text, although it was only in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that the critical investigation of the textual testimonies emerged as such, with the appearance of the Polyglot Bibles, whose publication in columns allowed for comparison. This lengthy process, intrinsic to the very history of the text, has stimulated the high degree of specialization that the field of biblical studies currently possesses, compartmentalizing the fields according to their different phases, factors, languages, periods, or simply their interests. In spite of the great advantages of specialization when acquiring a deeper knowledge regarding certain aspects, this specialization itself also implies the taking on an accumulation of deficiencies. Each area of study has created its specific tools and methodologies, giving way to a fragmentation of biblical studies that is too rigid (Septuagintal, Qumranic, Rabbinic, Targumic, and Masoretic, among others). This fragmentation could become detrimental to the development of biblical studies without an adequate interaction between the different areas of study. For this reason, in order to obtain the most advantage from the benefits of this specialization and avoid any problems that could arise, it is necessary to encourage interdisciplinary work and promote venues and channels of communication (publications, congresses and other formats), particularly among areas that are closely related. In this manner, the results of studies carried out in the different areas could be integrated into a broader field of analysis.1 1 In this sense, we wish to convey the general vision that M. Goodman presents regarding “The

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

18

Elvira Martín-Contreras and Lorena Miralles-Maciá

The biblical text presents numerous complications due to its long history, such as: loss of original manuscripts, errors in the copies, confusion of letters and words, deliberate changes, the updating of a text or harmonization; other problems derive from the different versions of the text (MT, LXX, etc.). Added to these problems are the difficulties that confront textual criticism itself and the further sciences implied in the study of the biblical text. From this perspective, we wish to make known some of the questions relating to the biblical text that continue to be problematic, and we will present some proposals arising from the exchange of information and results gathered from among specialists in the different fields that are involved in this book: textual criticism, rabbinic studies and Masoretic studies. The subjects that are proposed are centered on the questions that have directly influenced the understanding and study of the standardization, transmission and preservation of the biblical text, and that are derived from work that has been carried out in the symposium.

II One relevant question in the framework of the textual criticism of the Hebrew biblical text concerns the terminology employed. The fact that several articles in this book deal with the suitability of some of the concepts most employed in this field,2 as well as the numerous references to terminology, in the form of clarifications and qualifications that took place in the symposium’s debates, points to the necessity of once again taking up the terminological debate from the Seventies of the past century. Since that time, the lack of definition, vagueness and ambiguity of this terminology has been pointed out, and there have been some attempts at offering alternatives that would resolve some of the problems that derive from this issue. One of the main problems has been the creation of specific terminology that is applicable to the texts. Thus, David W. Gooding,3 upon analyzing the work of Frank M. Cross, in which he develops upon his theory of local texts,4 demonNature of Jewish Studies” (in id. [ed.], The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002], 1 – 13) to biblical studies and particularly its related fields (textual criticism, Rabbinic literature, the Masorah, etc.). In that work, Goodman sets out the situation of the interdisciplinarity of the Jewish studies, dealing with the division of the areas of study and a certain isolation of these studies from each other. In response to the question, “Where should the subject go in the future?,” he advocates taking advantage of the diversity and making room at the same time for what he calls “cross-disciplinarity.” 2 E.g. see the contributions of E. Tov. and A. van der Kooij in this book. 3 D. W. Gooding, “An Appeal for a Stricter Terminology in the Textual Criticism of the Old Testament,” JSS 21 (1976), 15 – 25. 4 F. M. Cross, “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts,” in F. M. Cross and S. Talmon (eds.),

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Interdisciplinary Perspectives

19

strates that the terminology employed in the textual criticism of the OT was unnecessarily vague. He points out, among other things, the lack of distinction between ‘text-type’ and ‘family.’ Emanuel Tov also joins this debate with his own analysis, pointing out the interchangeable use of terms such as ‘family’ and ‘recension,’ which caused him to propose an “uncompromising term for the textual witnesses, they should be called text.”5 The work of the former was subsequently addressed by James R. Davila,6 who, in spite of criticism, did not propose any other option. Other researchers, dedicated to the field of Qumranic studies, have noted the importance of establishing adequate terminology.7 Among them, it is necessary to mention Eugene C. Ulrich, who has touched upon this subject on several occasions. In the first place, recognizing that we are only “in a position to propose tentative terms” due to the difficulty entailed, he proposes, with his corresponding definition, the terms and categories ‘text family,’ ‘text type,’ text tradition,’ and ‘text group.’ In order to test their application to textual data, Ulrich presented as an example the analysis of the two longest manuscripts of Daniel that are found in the Qumran.8 More recently, Ulrich has dealt with the categories into which the Scriptural scrolls of Qumran are divided.9 While recognizing the pedagogical advantages, for students and non-specialists, of the classifications that had been proposed, he suggests the need for the next step in this field as being to “re-describe the situation in terms appropriate to a firstcenturies mentality ;” he also points out the anachronism of categories such as ‘Masoretic,’ ‘Proto-Masoretic Text,’ ‘Proto-Rabbinic,’ ‘Pre-Samaritan,’ and proposes, as an alternative, that “the text types for each book be classified according to the successive editions for which we have evidence.” Such terminological debate regarding the Second Temple texts is well underway.10

5 6 7

8 9

10

Qumram and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 306 – 320. E. Tov, “A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumram Scrolls,” HUCA 53 (1982), 11 – 27. J. R. Davila, “Text-Type and Terminology : Genesis and Exodus as Text Case,” Revue de Qumran 16 (1993), 3 – 37. E.g. P. Flint (Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms [STDJ 17; Leiden: Brill, 1997], 13 – 26) dedicates an entire chapter to the problem of adequate terminology, in which he offers a bibliography concerning the previous discussions, terms that require further study, and the definition of the terminology used in this study. E. C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids/Cambridge/ Leiden: Eerdmans/Brill, 1999), 94 – 98. E. C. Ulrich, “Clearer Insight into the Development of the Bible – A Gift of the Scrolls,” in A. D. Roitman, L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6 – 8, 2008) (STDJ 93; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 119 – 137, esp. 126 – 130. M. Zahn, “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology,” in H. Hanne von Weissenberg, J. Pakkala, and M. Marttila (eds.), Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

20

Elvira Martín-Contreras and Lorena Miralles-Maciá

Throughout this debate two fundamental problems can be noted. One of them lies in the adoption of terms employed in the textual criticism of the NT by specialists in the OT. This adoption would not be adequate, due to the great differences that exist between the textual data of both areas.11 The other problem that arises is that the terminology is determined by the theories that try to explain the object or process that is named. This is clearly noticed in the articles of Tov and Arie van der Kooij contained in this book. In those articles, the distinction between ‘standardization’ and ‘stabilization’ has to do with the interpretation that the researchers make of the data to construct these processes or with their ideas regarding them. The nuances that are distinguished when speaking about the history of the text cause them to propose terms such as ‘growing stability’ or ‘process of stabilization,’ emphasizing that it was a progressive process. The same occurs with terms such as ‘proto-Masoretic’ and ‘proto-rabbinic,’ which are used indiscriminately according to the standpoint of those by whom they are applied. In this manner, the vagueness and ambiguity of the concepts, which has been underscored by some researchers, only seems to reflect the actual state of the research in which it is found. How can a process that is explained by means of diverse hypotheses and revised time and again without precision be precisely named? To a certain extent, the same issue arises with the text models that researchers create and use for the development of the biblical text. In fact, specialists have already pointed out a number of disadvantages concerning this: its abstract and hypothetical nature, due to, among other reasons, the scarcity of textual evidence, a certain amount of ideological baggage, and the difficulty of knowing if the models employed from other literary compositions are adequate parallels for the biblical books.12 In this manner, then, the need arises to determine what relationship can be established between those models and the biblical texts that have been handed down to us. In order to determine this, it would be very helpful to observe the models of other corpora that have undergone a similar process during the same period as that of the biblical texts that we possess. In this manner, perhaps the practice of using more modern texts anachronistically to explain more ancient texts could be avoided. Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period (BZAW 419; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2011), 93 – 120. 11 For a summary of the issue, see J. R. Adair, Jr., “Old and New in Textual Criticism: Similarities, Differences, and Prospects for Cooperation,” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 1 (1996). Online: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v01/Adair1996.html. 12 M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, “The Development of the Hebrew Text of the Bible: Theories and Practice of Textual Criticism,” VT 42:2 (1992), 204 – 213; E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2d ed. rev.; Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress Press/Royal Van Gorcum, 2001), 171, 175.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Interdisciplinary Perspectives

21

III The use of rabbinic literature in the field of textual criticism is also not without objections. Some of these objections are due to a lack of knowledge of one of the fundamental and still-open issues in the field of rabbinic studies: the use of this literature as valid historical evidence. Since the nineteenth century, when the first attempts were made to apply a critical method to the literary production of Classical Judaism, an answer has been sought for this question, allowing for differing tendencies and opinions. Scholars of that century, spearheaded by Isaac Markus Jost, believed without a doubt that the Talmud was a source for history, that of the Jewish people in the rabbinic period. According to the textual and philological ideas of that century, at the end of that era it was concluded that it was necessary to establish the original text in order to obtain the history it contained. Thus it was that the projects of critical publication were begun, and these would continue in the twentieth century under the leadership of great scholars such as J. Epstein, Saul Lieberman or Samuel Rosenthal, who shared this idea. Literary criticism, a new school of thought introduced by J. Frankel at the end of the Seventies of the past century, began to question this idea. His work concerning the Aggadic components of the rabbinic corpus by means of this method led him to affirm that these were “literary constructs with overarching didactic messages,” and therefore, that the rabbinic histories were produced by certain Rabbis for other Rabbis. In his opinion, it was necessary to complete the literary analysis before using those Haggadic histories. The followers of both methods demand that historians wait until their work is completed before beginning to use this literature as historical evidence. During the latter part of the twentieth century, and before finishing the work of resolving the initial question, a new proposal arose as a result of the works of Shamma Friedman and David Weiss Halivni: the editorial process carried out by the anonymous editors (stammaim) and primarily centered on the Babylonian Talmud. The impact this editorial process had on how the Talmudic period had been represented until that point drastically changed that portrayal.13 In view of this brief presentation, it can be observed that some of the arguments used in the field of textual criticism and based upon rabbinic texts demonstrate that the approach to the rabbinic literature from that field gives us an undeniable historic value without taking any other consideration into ac13 For a more extensive explanation concerning this issue, see I. Gafni, “The Modern Study of Rabbinics and Historical Questions: the Tale of the Text,” in R. Bieringer et al. (eds.), The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (JSJSup 136; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 43 – 61, and the bibliography noted in that work.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

22

Elvira Martín-Contreras and Lorena Miralles-Maciá

count. Thus, the accounts concerning the archetypical text of the Torah from where the copies were made (e. g. NumR 11:3) or the three rolls kept in the Temple (y. Taan 4:2 68a), the variants of the Severus scroll (GenR 9:5), or the references to the work of the sopherim (tiqqune sopherim, etc.) are taken to be trustworthy descriptions of what occurred with the biblical text. As a consequence, they are considered to be valid proofs of the activity of textual criticism developed by the sopherim and the basis of the theory of an editorial process; in other words, they allow for an explanation of what took place with the biblical text during the eight centuries that date from the defended standardization of the text until the first Tiberian codices that we know of. Furthermore, within the field of rabbinic studies, the works concerning the validity of the rabbinic literature as historic evidence have led to the questioning of other aspects of this literature, also related to and utilized in the textual criticism of the biblical text, such as: the dating of the traditions contained in the rabbinic texts and the point of view of rabbinic Judaism as unitary and dominant in Palestine after the destruction of the Second Temple. Up until several decades ago, it was accepted without question that the rabbinic traditions had been transmitted from generation to generation in a reliable manner. The attributions to well-known Rabbis allowed for determining the date in which they had occurred; in the same way, the anonymous texts were considered, in principle, to be very ancient. However, in recent years, it has become particularly important to consider how the traditions contained in the rabbinic literature can be dated, before using these traditions to understand the history and thoughts of the Jewish people in the rabbinic era.14 This becomes especially necessary if we take into account that one of the arguments employed until now to date the texts, the attribution of some sayings to the names of Rabbis, has been questioned.15 The reliability of those attributions is doubtful for several reasons: a) the errors in the transmission of names, b) the attribution of the same statements or opinions to different Rabbis depending upon which document is consulted, c) the mention of the paradigmatic histories of the Rabbis as mere examples, for which reason they can be changed. Despite these problems and the difficulty of establishing a methodology that allows for a better dating of the texts, an approximate dating of the rabbinic literature exists. This dating, as 14 See G. Stemberger, “Dating Rabbinic Traditions,” in R. Bieringer et al. (eds.), The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (JSJSup 136; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 79 – 96. 15 See W. S. Green, “‘What’s in a Name’ – The Problematic of Rabbinic ‘Biography,’” Approaches to Ancient Judaism 1 (1978), 77 – 96; D. Kraemer, “On the Reliability of Attributions in the Babylonian Talmud,” HUCA 60 (1989), 175 – 190; J. Neusner, “Evaluating the Attributions of Sayings to Named Sages in Rabbinic Literature,” JSJ 26:1 (1995), 93 – 111; S. Stern, “Attribution and Authorship in the Babylonian Talmud,” JJS (1994), 28 – 51; id., “The Concept of Authorship in the Babylonian Talmud,” JJS (1995), 183 – 195.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Interdisciplinary Perspectives

23

Günter Stemberger argues, should be taken into account when attempting to date the rabbinic traditions.16 In the same manner, the parallels should be borne in mind, when they exist, without presupposing that these have always been produced at a later date. Taking into consideration the importance of the dating of the rabbinic texts in order for their correct usage, the need arises to make certain clarifications. These have a bearing on some of the ideas pointed out in the field of textual criticism that are used to describe the status of the biblical text in the first and second centuries based upon the rabbinic texts. Thus, the existence of a ‘master’ copy of the Torah scroll kept in the Temple cannot be spoken of without taking into account that the idea comes from the Babylonian Talmud (b. Ket 106a), that is, from a later point of view, for which reason this should not be used to describe the situation of the first centuries of our age. Arguments that are based upon the names of the Rabbis should also be reviewed, such as the ascribing of copies of the Torah scrolls to Severus and R. Meir and thereby connecting them with the Temple circles, or the use of the exegetic method attributed to R. Aqiba as an indicator of that the biblical text was necessarily standardized in that period already. On the other hand, the fact that the same rabbinic sources are the only documents that allow us to understand the internal development of this train of thought, has fomented the erroneous idea of what has been identified as “normative Judaism.”17 The idealized image of a unitary and dominant rabbinic Judaism in Palestine after the destruction of the Temple has been steadily unraveling among historians.”18 Traditionally, the origins of the rabbinic movement were established to be the time immediately following this destruction, 16 “The Mishnah is usually dated to about 200 CE, the Yerushalmi to about 400 CE. There is less agreement regarding the Tosefta and the Halakhic Midrashim, but the majority would place them somewhere between Mishnah and Yerushalmi, probably closer to the Mishnah. The same could be argued regarding some Halakhic Midrashim, above all Sipra. The classical Amoraic Midrashim, Midrash Rabbah on Genesis, Leviticus and Lamentations, and the Pesiqta de-Rab Kahana, are normally dated in the fifth century, and many other Midrashim are thought to fit the time bracket between 400 and 600. As to the Bavli, the traditional dating to about 500 is still maintained by many ; a date somewhere after the Islamic conquest seems to be more realistic. And finally we have a group of later Midrashim – e. g. Pirqe de-R. Eliezer or Seder Eliyahu Rabbah – which are generally considered to be post-talmudic, late eighth or early ninth century” (Stemberger, “Dating,” 82 – 83). 17 G. Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (9th ed.; München: C.H. Beck, 2011), 15. 18 C. Hezser, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine (TSAJ 66; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997); J. L. Rubensstein, The Culture of the Babylon Talmud (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003); H. Lapin, “The Origins and Development of the Rabbinic Movement in the Land of Israel,” in The Late Roman-rabbinic Period (vol. 4 of S. T. Katz [ed.], Cambridge History of Judaism (New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 206 – 229.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

24

Elvira Martín-Contreras and Lorena Miralles-Maciá

based upon the account of the escape of R. Yohanan ben Zakkai to Yavneh and the destruction of the Temple (ARN 4:7 – 8). This was considered to be the foundational episode of the rabbinic movement, despite the fact that it is only found in relatively later accounts.19 It would seem to be more appropriate to imagine the Rabbis in Palestine between the year 70 CE and the middle of the fourth century as a small group of religious men with hardly any influence; and the same also took place in Babylon.20 Current studies also maintain that the Rabbis did not have much influence on the Jewish communities of Palestine and Babylon until the Arab Period. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that rabbinic Judaism of the first and second centuries was that which represented Judaism as a whole. For this reason, the texts of other groups that existed in that period must also be taken into account in the study of the history of the biblical text. Furthermore, other open questions exist within the field of rabbinic studies that make clear the need to revise other arguments employed from the field of textual criticism for the account of the phases of the Hebrew biblical text. One of these questions has to do with the nature of the rabbinic sources, or the texts themselves. At the end of the decade of the Eighties of the past century, Peter Schäfer presented a series of questions that called into question terms that had been used until that point (such as text, ‘Urtext,’ recension, tradition, citation, redaction, final redaction, work); at the same time, these questions undermined the traditional objectives of searching for the ‘best text’ or creating critical editions of any rabbinic work.21 The debate was open, reactions came quickly, and the discussion continues until today.22 Within this debate can be found a relevant aspect referring to implication in the field of textual criticism: the fact that the majority of extant rabbinic manuscripts were produced in the Middle Ages, which is the equivalent of stating that the Medieval authors understood the text, and consequently the need to be careful in its use.23 The fact 19 See S. J. D. Cohen, “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism,” HUCA 55 (1984), 27 – 54. 20 “Auch wenn man ein Mehrfaches der namentlich bekannten Rabbinen annimmt, dazu eine grössere Zahl ihrer Schüler, machten sie wohl auch noch in späterer Zeit sicher weit weniger als ein Prozent der jüdischen Bevölkerung aus” (Stemberger, Das klassiche Judentum. Kultur und Geschichte der rabbinischen Zeit [München: C.H. Beck, 2009], 86). 21 P. Schäfer, “Research Into Rabbinic Literature: An Attempt to Define the Status Quaestionis,” JJS 37:2 (1986), 139 – 152. 22 Schäfer’s ideas were refuted by C. Milikowsky, “The Status Quaestionis of Research in Rabbinic Literature,” JJS 39:2 (1988), 201 – 211. Schäfer responded in the article, “Once Again the Status Quaestionis of Research in Rabbinic Literature: An Answer to Chaim Milikowsky,” JJS 40:1 (1989), 89 – 94. See G. Veltri, “From the best Text to the Pragmatic Edition: On Editing Rabbinic Texts,” in R. Bieringer et al. (eds.), The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (JSJSup 136; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 63 – 78, esp. 69 – 70, for the applicability to this subject. 23 M. Beit-Ari¦, “Transmission of Texts by Scribes and Copyists: Unconscious and Critical

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Interdisciplinary Perspectives

25

that the texts are much later than the dates established for the process of stabilization and standardization of the biblical text is cause for reflection concerning the usage made of the biblical citations contained in the rabbinic literature as a reflection of that process or earlier stages. On the other hand, it must be assumed that the biblical text that is reflected by the manuscripts is already the MT after having undergone a process of standardization. Concerning this point, another factor must be taken into account that directly affects the standardization process of the rabbinic literature and consequent use of the biblical text: the task of publishing such fundamental works as the two talmudim continued to take place centuries after what is considered to be their official redaction. Furthermore, it would seem that the Talmudic manuscripts were still scarce in the Geonic period.24 When the copies of the Talmud, and mainly that of Babylonia, became more prevalent, the MT would have already been generalized. For this reason, it is difficult to speak of the biblical text of the Rabbis. To leave out this fact, which has been attempted to be employed as an argument in favor of the existence of variants between the MT and biblical text cited by the Rabbis,25 is to only delve more deeply into the same question: how to assess, then, these variants? Thus, Tov considers them as a reflection of the second phase of the history of the text, from the prior plurality to the stabilization of the same text,26 but it is certain that not much work has been carried out in this vein.27 The most notable attempts form part of the Hebrew University Bible Project. In order to include the variants of rabbinic literature in the second

24

25

26 27

Interferences,” in P. S. Alexander and A. Samely (eds.), Artefact and Text: the Re-Creation of Jewish Literature in Medieval Hebrew (Manchester : John Rylands Library, 1994), 33 – 52; I. M. Ta-Shma, “The ‘Open’ Book in Medieval Hebrew Literature: the Problem of Authorized Editions,” in P. S. Alexander and A. Samely (eds.), Artefact and Text: the Re-Creation of Jewish Literature in Medieval Hebrew (Manchester : John Rylands Library, 1994), 17 – 42. Possibly due to the cost of the materials, the parchment, and the interest the geonim had in not revealing too much of the Talmud, in order to have total control over the tradition; see Stemberger (Das klassische Judentum, 251 – 255) regarding the process of the ‘canonization’ of the tradition. The variants that are found in the Former Prophets are complied in V. Aptowitzer, Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur (4 vols.; Wien: Alfred Holder, 1908; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1970); for the variants found in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel see M. Goshen-Gottstein (ed.), The Book of Isaiah: The Hebrew University Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1995); C. Rabin, S. Talmon and E. Tov (eds.), The Book of Jeremiah: The Hebrew University Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1997); M. Goshen-Gottstein and S. Talmon (eds.), The Book of Ezekiel: The Hebrew University Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2004). E. Tov, Textual Criticism (2d ed.), 34 – 35. For a study of this issue see Y. Maori, “The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Rabbinic Writings in the Ligth of the Qumran Evidence,” in D. Dimant and U. Rappapot (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Forty Years of Research (Leiden/Jerusalem: Brill/Magnes Press/Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1992), 283 – 289.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

26

Elvira Martín-Contreras and Lorena Miralles-Maciá

critical apparatus of its publication of the Aleph Codex, a series of criteria are established to differentiate the authentic variants from those which those which are not.28 To this second group belong those variants that are considered to be a product of the interpretative work of the Rabbis. This opens the debate concerning the need to differentiate that which is ‘exegetic’ from that which is not by means of specific studies without presupposing that everything that is rabbinic is exegetic. For this reason, then, the exegetical readings would have to be taken into account. It would also be necessary to review the continuous allusions to the copies of the Torah that were distributed by all of the synagogues of Palestine. In that sense, it is necessary to take into account the advances made in Israel in the field of archeology, which have made possible a reconsideration of the study of ancient Judaism. Thus, those allusions are at odds with the archeological evidence which has been discovered to date.29 There is a lack of archeological data in the land of Israel from the year 70 to the year 250, for which reason it is difficult to ascertain how many synagogues existed in Palestine during that period; neither can any rabbinic text be found in the synagogues that dates before the third and fourth centuries.30 The same archeological argument can be put forth with respect to other texts from which can be deduced the existence of a scroll of the Law in the synagogues. According to the rabbinic texts, the reader was obligated to follow the scroll of the Torah, even though the section would have been known by memory, while the tradition was carried out orally : “The words that have been given orally, [must be transmitted] orally ; the words that have been given in writing, [must be transmitted] in writing” (y. Meg 4:1 74d). Another problem that directly affects the transmission of the text of the Torah is related to the cycle of synagogical readings and their division into sedarim. While in Babylon the reading was completed in one year – a practice that was eventually imposed upon all the communities over time –, in Palestine the reading took three years: “In the west… the Torah was completed in three years” 28 M. Goshen-Gottstein, The Book of Isaiah. Sample Edition with Introduction (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1965), 7. 29 D. Urman and P. V. M. Flesher (eds.), Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1995/1998); S. Fine (ed.), Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World (New York: Oxford University Press/ Yeshiva University Museum, 1996); L. I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue. The First Thousand Years (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2000); A. Runesson, D. D. Binder and B. Olsson, The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 C.E. A Source Book (AJEC 72; Leiden: Brill, 2008); G. Stemberger, Das klassische Judentum, 89 – 106, esp. 91 – 92. 30 Added to this is the fact that in the origins of the rabbinic movement, the Sages were probably not very involved in the synagogues and did not have much influence on the liturgy ; see Stemberger, Das klassische Judentum, 105 – 106.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Interdisciplinary Perspectives

27

(b. Meg 29b). This triennial cycle of readings which is referred to in the Talmudic text is the oldest; however, we do not know the extent to which we can consider it as reliable historic evidence or a reflection of what took place in the days of the Talmud. Added to this is the fact that, despite the attempts to reconstruct a standardized triennial cycle,31 the majority of studies agree that the division of readings was not the same in all of the Palestinian communities.32 Therefore, further research must still determine what value the rabbinic literature has when studying this question. All of the above underscores the pressing need to continue updating and incorporating the discoveries made in the field of rabbinic studies to the field of textual criticism.

IV Another question related to the standardization and transmission of the biblical text during the rabbinic period is directly linked with the linguistic knowledge that the Rabbis had and the possible grammatical categories that they were able to use. In fact, when touching upon the ‘grammatical subject,’ specialists use Medieval Arab grammar as their starting point.33 While it is certain that by way of Arab scholarship this subject matter arose among the Jews as we understand it today, we cannot overlook the fact that a grammatical understanding was already perceived in the Masorah – an entirely Hebrew work – as highlighted by Aron Dotan.34 However, when we transfer this investigation to the rabbinic period, there is still much work to be done, since the data are scarce and obscure.35 Upon asking ourselves about the rabbinic study of the biblical text, which implies a specific way of approaching that text in order to understand and transmit it, there still remain important gaps to be resolved. Added to this is the further difficulty of conceiving the rabbinic literature as a unified whole over the course of a millennium; for this reason, the temptation arises to generalize the rabbinic conceptions concerning the language and its study and applying them 31 See L. Jacobs, “Torah, Reading of,” in EncJud (2d ed.), 20:46 – 49. 32 See B. L. Visotzky, Golden Bells and Pomegranates. Studies in Midrash Leviticus Rabbah (TSAJ 94; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 12 and the bibliography of n. 9. 33 J. Barr and D. T¦n¦, “Linguistic Literature, Hebrew,” EncJud (2d ed.), 13:29 – 61, esp. 29 ff. 34 A. Dotan, The Awakening of Word Lore: from the Masora to the Beginnings of Hebrew Lexicography (Heb.; Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2005). See E. Mart†nContreras, “Grammatik. III. Judaistisch,” in O. Wishchmeyer et al. (eds.), Lexikon der Bibelhermeneutik (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 236 – 237. 35 Although the Book of Creation (Sefer Yetzirah) can be considered as the first Hebrew grammar, which shares some ideas with the rabbinic literature, it is not valid as evidence from this period, or at least it is not valid as as evidence from the first centuries.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

28

Elvira Martín-Contreras and Lorena Miralles-Maciá

to all of the Sages.36 Consequently, it would be necessary to investigate whether the Rabbis have ever approached the biblical text from a grammatical perspective, and as a determining fact in the standardization and transmission of this text. In order to do this, we must take into account the clues that the rabbinic production has left us. Researchers have begun to put forth this question – usually in a tangential manner – starting with these clues. Beyond the possible Greek legacy, certain interests in subjects directly related to the study of language are detected in rabbinic literature. In this sense, it becomes necessary to establish what the position of the Sages was regarding the status of Hebrew, and what possible linguistic concerns arose from its position as a privileged language in the transmission of the text of the Bible. There is no doubt that the Sages recognize Hebrew as the ‘language of creation,’37 since, according to their testimonies, the world was formed by means of the word (m. Abot 5:1); and as such Hebrew is also considered to be the ‘holy language’ (GenR 18:4).38 Thus, the need to preserve this language becomes evident. We can suppose, then, that the search for other mechanisms to achieve this, which from our perspective today we would define as linguistic mechanisms. There is no doubt that at a certain time the Rabbis were conscious of the linguistic changes within so-called ‘rabbinic Hebrew’ and biblical Hebrew; in the words of R. Johanan: 9BJF@ A=B?; C9M@ ,8BJF@ 8L9N C9M@ (‘The language of the Torah by itself, the language of the Wise Men by itself ’).39 Among these modifications can be mentioned the new meanings of terms, consonantal changes (especially among letters that had lost their original sound, and for which reason tended to be confused with others: A / M, ; / ?, F / X), the confusion among similar spellings (the orthographic errors that this implies), and above all, the development of the verbal system (from a modal system to a temporal system).40 From the point of view of current research, this difference that has caused specialists to 36 G. Stemberger, “Hebräisch als ideale Sprache – Konsequenzen für die Hermeneutik,” in Judaica Minora I: Biblische Traditionen im rabbinischen Judentum (TSAJ 133; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 88 – 102, esp. 89. 37 This idea already appears in the Book of Jubilees 12:25 – 27. See S. Schorch, “The Preeminence of the Hebrew Language and the Emerging Concept of the ‘Ideal Text’ in Late Second Temple Judaism,” in G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengell¦r (eds.), Studies in the Book of Ben Sira (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 43 – 54, esp. 47. 38 Hebrew was also accepted as the suitable language to receive the revelation, the language of the liturgy, the language in which the Torah is learned, and as such must be part of one’s education, etc.; see Stemberger, “Hebräisch als ideale Sprache,” 89 – 93. 39 M. P¦rez-Fern‚ndez, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (trans. J. Elwolde; Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1997), 1. 40 “Den Rabbinen war natürlich bewusst, dass sich auch das Hebräische im Lauf der Zeit wandelte, es einen Unterschied zwischen der ‘Sprache der Tora’ und der ‘Sprache der Weisen,’ d. h. der Rabbinen gibt (bHul 137b), dass Wortbedeutungen sich ebenso ändern wie die grammatische Struktur der Sprache.” (Stemberger, “Hebräisch als ideale Sprache,” 97).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Interdisciplinary Perspectives

29

grant the studies of Rabbinic Hebrew its own entity is difficult to distinguish.41 Although it is accepted that the Sages attempted to protect the language of the Torah, research still has not yet responded to the question as to how much – if indeed at all – the distinction between diverse linguistic levels (‘holy language,’ ‘language of the Sages,’ and common language) influenced the standardization of the biblical text: in addition, providing that is assumed that the tannaim already understood the linguistic levels in the same way that we understand them today, or at least in the same way that later generations of Rabbis understood them.42 According to what the texts reveal to us, the Sages had certain grammatical and orthographic skills; in fact, the hermeneutic rules themselves (middot) and other resources employed mainly as exegetical devices can be used as linguistic mechanisms, such as, for example, the use of the term ketiv.43 However, a discussion has been raised concerning the specifically grammatical information that certain texts provide us, since it must be decided if these are accepted or not as evidences of a rabbinic reflection of a linguistic nature. Once again the problem arises concerning the transmission sources, since, as has already been pointed out, the manuscripts that have been handed down to us are from the medieval period. Therefore, this information could be considered as later additions,44 in which case we would once again lack rabbinic texts that are contemporary with literary production. Nevertheless, it seems evident that although the Sages did not possess a specifically grammatical terminology, as would occur later due to the influence of the Arab grammarians, they were indeed conscious of the linguistic phenomena, as is demonstrated, for example, by the attempts to shed light upon certain etymologies.45 Another subject that would be closely connected to the learning of a grammar, either explicitly or intuitively, would be the translation of the Bible into Greek, Aramaic and subsequently into other languages. There is not sufficient information to determine to what degree this process could have influenced in the acquisition of linguistic knowledge at the time of translating the Bible. In order to carry out this work, it would have been essential to ponder how to translate all of the elements of the text from one language to another – not only the concepts,

41 See A. S‚enz-Badillos, A History of the Hebrew Language (trans. J. Elwolde; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 161 ff. 42 Schorch, “The Pre-eminence of the Hebrew Language,” 47. 43 See E. Mart†n-Contreras, La interpretaciûn de la Creaciûn. T¦cnicas exeg¦ticas en “G¦nesis Rabbah” (Biblioteca Midr‚sica 24; Estella, Navarra: Verbo Divino, 2002), 171 ff. 44 See article of G. Stemberger in this book. 45 See Stemberger, “Hebräisch als ideale Sprache,” 97 – 98.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

30

Elvira Martín-Contreras and Lorena Miralles-Maciá

but also grammatical categories, syntax and other phenomena related to translation.46 In short, translation involves being aware of language and its uses, including nuances that cannot be translated: “Things expressed originally in Hebrew do not have the same intensity when they are translated into another language” (Sir Prologue 21 – 22).47 For this reason, to translate is to assume the risk and the commitment of reproducing the original text, overcoming the distances. Linguistic knowledge would have been indispensable for that work. Consequently, studies are needed to delve more deeply into this fundamental question in order to understand the process of standardization and transmission of the Bible.

V In this debate, it is also necessary to point out the limited inclusion of the Masorah in the study of the history, transmission and standardization of the biblical text. The lack of knowledge concerning it, the lack of understanding of its nature, as well as the prevalence of different stereotypes and ideas regarding it have determined – and continue to determine – its use as an indispensable tool for textual criticism and other related fields among researchers unrelated to Masoretic studies. Almost nothing is known regarding the circumstances that brought about the appearance of the Masorah as a well-defined system of notes, or about the Masoretes who were responsible for this work. Its nature and purpose can be defined by means of the content of the Masoretic notes themselves, in whatever format they may be (together with the biblical text or independently); however, the vast majority of Masoretic material still remains unedited.48 Therefore our knowledge concerning its content, and consequently its nature, is still only partial. What is clear is its purpose: that of preserving the biblical text unaltered and without changes. This is inferred from the tendency in the notes to demonstrate and comment upon the minority forms, to point out exceptions and unique cases, to show variations in the meaning of a word, etc. For this reason it is noteworthy that the Masoretes are still considered to be those who continued the work of the sopherim, when their objectives seem to be opposite (the only existing references concerning the sopherim are those that allude to the changes 46 Stemberger, “Hebräisch als ideale Sprache,” 100. 47 Schorch, “The Pre-eminence of the Hebrew Language,” 48; see also M. Simon-Shoshan, “The Task of the Translators. The Rabbis, the Septuagint, and the Cultural Politics of Translation,” Prooftexts 27 (2007), 1 – 39. 48 Regarding the causes of this situation, see the contribution of E. Mart†n-Contreras in this book.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Interdisciplinary Perspectives

31

that they introduced in the biblical text).49 The same can be said regarding the recurring idea that continuity exists between the Rabbis and the Masoretes and between the rabbinic literature and the Masorah. It is true that some of the textual traditions that resulted in the Masorah are found in the rabbinic literature,50 but this does not prove that they can be considered rabbinic; it only points out the role that this literature played as a means of textual transmission. In fact, if we consider that the Masorah was, in the first place, a collection of textual traditions that were transmitted orally, the rabbinic literature could have included accounts of such traditions. Some of the unique characteristics of the Masorah are viewed by specialists in other fields as a problem, or as an inconvenience in order to know what the Masorah says. In this manner, they disregard the fact that there is not one sole Masorah, and therefore, the information about a word that can appear in different forms, and that not all the manuscripts present the same information.51 Consequently, there is a tendency to speak about “the Masorah” as if there were only one standard and exact copy, when in fact it would be more correct to refer to the Masorah of this or that manuscripts.52 This conception is often the cause of neglecting to compare the information about a word or group of words in the different manuscripts, and false conclusions are derived, such as, for example, the thought that a word does not have Masorah if it does not appear in the manuscript that is being consulted.53 Additionally, significant amount of information does not appear in the Masoretic notes, due to the concise manner in which the notes are expressed as a rule (generally using abbreviations), which has been identified as problematic. Many consider that since a researcher must supply all the information that is lacking, there is a greater probability that the interpretation of the notes will be somewhat subjective, or mere hypothesis. However, this fear of potential arbitrariness only demonstrates the lack of knowledge of the nature of the Masorah and the methodology that is employed to decipher the Masoretic notes.54 In order to deal with the Masoretic note, it is necessary to first understand exactly 49 This lack of correlation had already been pointed out by Ginsburg in the nineteenth century ; see C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1966), 421. 50 See the contribution of E. Mart†n-Contreras in this book. 51 See J. A. Sanders, “Text and Canon: Concepts and Method,” JBL 98 (1979), 5 – 29, esp. 16. 52 Due to the identification that is generally made of the MTwith Ms B19 of Leningrad (L), when the “Masorah” is spoken of, usually reference is being made to the Masorah of that manuscript, although this is not stated. 53 Fortunately, the new edition of L, the BHQ, includes this idea and does not present a unified Masorah, as did its predecessor, the BHS. 54 E. Mart†n-Contreras and G. Seijas de los R†os-Zarzosa, Masora. La transmisiûn de la tradiciûn de la Biblia Hebrea (Estella, Navarra: Verbo Divino 2010), 103 – 118.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

32

Elvira Martín-Contreras and Lorena Miralles-Maciá

what the note says, and then to supply the information that is not stated using the clues provided by what is explicitly stated. Therefore, the following step would be to precisely prove the veracity of the note: if the number of times that the word is stated matches the simanim given, and if the verses have the phenomenon recorded, etc. For this process, other Masoretic works can be consulted to verify if similar information exists. The lack of knowledge of the nature of the Masorah is also perceived in the separation that is made between the MP and MM, in that they are dealt with as two very different corpora, resulting in not considering the latter. However, we must not forget that the Masorah that accompanies the biblical text is made up of both: the MM complements the MP, even though not all MP have a MM and vice versa. The stereotypical idea that the Masorah has an essentially numerical character leads to erroneous conclusions, such as that the Masorah includes formal questions of the text and not aspects relative to its meaning. While it is true that many of the Masoretic notes only are presented with a number without the addition of any specific data, this does not mean that their purpose is that of scrupulously counting the words. Some Masoretic notes may contain information of a statistical nature, but in the majority of the notes, the appearance of a number only represents the most abbreviated form of recording the information, which can be of a grammatical type, textual criticism type, etc. This idea regarding the Masorah can, in the end, lead to ignorance regarding its exegetical value.55 Finally, it is worth mentioning the debate that arises around the usefulness or not of the Masorah for textual criticism today, due to the existence of new technologies. Computer programs developed in the area of studies of the text of the Bible (BibleWorks, Accordance, “The Haketer” software, Libronix Digital Library System, etc.), which contain electronic versions of two of the oldest codices, A and L, allow for complex searches and serve as concordances. For this reason, they are often suggested as substitutes for the Masorah. Their ease of use would appear to contrast with the apparent difficulty and tediousness of the Masorah, and if it is assumed that they serve the same purpose (provide the verses where a word or expression is found in a specific manner), why not choose the simplest method? However, this presupposition is not completely accurate. 55 See E. Fern‚ndez-Tejero, “Masora y Ex¦gesis,” in N. Fern‚ndez-Marcos, J. Trebolle-Barrera and J. Fern‚ndez-Vallina (eds.), Simposio B†blico EspaÇol (Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 1984), 183 – 191; For the function of accents in the interpretation and exegesis of biblical text, see the bibliography included in J. Revell, “The interpretative value of the Massoretic punctuation,” in Part 2: The Middle Age (vol. 1 of M. Saebø [ed.], Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 64 – 73, and the contribution of L. Himmelfarb in this book.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Interdisciplinary Perspectives

33

The Masoretic thought that is behind the notes cannot be so easily replaced. In a first approach, the Masoretic note is of utmost importance in order to perceive the existence of information regarding a letter, word, sequence, etc., placing us on the track and thus saving us time. Furthermore, the Masorah provides us with much other information which is not possible to search for using the abovementioned programs (e. g., all that is contained in the lists that make up the Sefer Oklah Masoretic treatise56), which also do not allow us to have a prior perception of what information we are able to search. Without a doubt, however, the most important argument in this entire discussion is that the Masorah is a ‘historical tool’ enabling us to understand the preservation of the biblical text. This window to the past cannot be replaced by any computer program. In any event, however, these programs are useful for speeding up the work of deciphering the Masoretic notes, turning the arduous search and identification of the simanim of the notes into something that is quick and accessible.

VI In conclusion, all of the questions dealt with respond to the debates that have marked – and continue to mark – the research regarding the Hebrew biblical text in the different phases of standardization, transmission and preservation. As has been pointed out throughout this article, these questions continue to remain open, for which reason it is indispensable to carry out a review of the premises, hypotheses and conclusions to those that have been presented to specialists in each area. On the other hand, it becomes increasingly clear that the newest advances in the study of the biblical text are determined by the need to share and compare the information and results among the researchers in related areas of study. This does not mean taking a position for a general and multidisciplinary education in the studies of the biblical text – thereby risking ourselves to a partial or even superficial analysis of the subject –, but rather advocating for interconnected specializations, as well as a well-understood interdisciplinarity. Currently we have important human and material resources at hand to achieve these advances, 56 S. Frensdorff, Das Buch Ochlah W’ochlah (Hannover: Hahn, 1864; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1972); F. D†az-Esteban, Sefer Oklah we Oklah: colecciûn de listas de palabras destinadas a conservar la integridad del texto hebreo de la Biblia entre los jud†os de la Edad Media (Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 4; Madrid: CSIC, 1975); B. Ognibeni, La seconda parte del Sefer Oklah we Oklah: edizione del Ms. Halle, Universitätsbibliothek (Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 57; Madrid/Fribourg: CSIC/Universit¦ De Fribourg, 1995).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

34

Elvira Martín-Contreras and Lorena Miralles-Maciá

put we must invest time and effort into sharing the individual achievements and creating room for them. This has been the objective of this contribution: to highlight these ideas, in order to be able to contribute in such debates with this succinct status of the question, and to encourage researchers to stimulate such collaboration in any conceivable format to that end.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

I. The Preservation and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Emanuel Tov Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

The Myth of the Stabilization of the Text of Hebrew Scripture

I After several centuries of textual plurality, a period of uniformity and stability can be discerned within Judaism at the end of the first century CE. At that time, the Qumran texts were hidden in the caves, and the Samaritan Pentateuch (Sam. Pent.) and the Septuagint (LXX), both deviating much the from Masoretic Text (MT), were cherished by different religious groups. Thus, it can safely be said that at the end of the first century CE the Hebrew and translated texts used within Judaism only reflect MT. This situation is usually explained as reflecting a conscious effort to stabilize the text of the Bible, sometimes presented as the creation of a standard text for Palestine as a whole. In this context, the terms stabilization and standardization are often used. However, textual stability (that is, when all sources use the same text) should not be confused with stabilization, that is, an organized attempt to create a stable text, since stability may have been caused by a number of factors. Standardization involves a conscious, even elaborate, process since it reflects an attempt to impose a text on a certain region or the country as a whole. An alternative explanation for the evidence could be the assumption of historical coincidence. For example, one could claim – as we do – that after the destruction of the Temple and with the splitting off from Judaism of the Samaritans and Christians, MTwas the only text surviving within Judaism from a previous plurality. This situation could easily create the illusion of stability resulting from stabilization that was created by the authorities. Prior to the discoveries in the Judean Desert, many scholars thought in terms of textual stabilization or standardization that took place at the end of the first century CE. After all, before 1947, scholars already knew that at that time only MT texts were circulating among Jews and that the scribes of MT transmitted that text with extreme care. I do not know when these concepts first appeared in

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

38

Emanuel Tov

the literature, but they can be traced back to at least the end of the nineteenth century.1 In modern times, several scholars likewise have expressed an opinion about conscious textual processes. Thus Brevard S. Childs speaks much about the “prestabilization period,”2 as if a stabilization process separated early multiformity from the stabilized text. Bleddyn J. Roberts3 and Armin Lange4 speak about the standardization of the text and the third chapter of a book by Dafydd R. ApThomas is named “Vocalization and Standardization.”5 Dominique Barth¦lemy speaks of “stabilisation consonnantique” having taken place towards the end of the first century CE.6 Bertil Albrektson and Julio Trebolle-Barrera speak about the emergence of a standard text,7 while the titles of studies by Moshe Greenberg and Ian Young include the term stabilization.8 Frank M. Cross speaks of the “fixing of the official text,”9 and this term (“Fixation”) is also dominant in

˘

1 C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897; repr., New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1966), 408: “Copies of these authorised Scriptures were deposited in the Court of the Temple;” P. Kahle, “Der Konsonantentext,” in H. Bauer and P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments (Halle: Niemeyer, 1922; repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1965), 73 – 81, esp. 73: “ein einheitlicher Bibeltext.” 2 B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia/London: Fortress Press/SCM Press, 1979), 103 – 106. 3 B. J. Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions: The Hebrew Text in Transmission and the History of the Ancient Versions (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1951), 29. 4 A. Lange, “‘They Confirmed the Reading’ (y. Ta an. 4:68a): The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period,” in A. Lange, M. Weigold and J. Zsengell¦r (eds.), From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of his 65th Birthday (FRLANT 230; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 29 – 80. 5 D. R. Ap-Thomas, A Primer of Old Testament Text Criticism (2d ed.; FBBS 14; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966). 6 D. Barth¦lemy, Êz¦chiel, Daniel et les 12 ProphÀtes (vol. 3 of Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament; OBO 50:3; Fribourg/Göttingen: Êditions Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), xcviii, cxiii, and passim. 7 B. Albrektson, Text, Translation, Theology : Selected Essays on the Hebrew Bible (SOTSM; Farnham/Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010), 47 – 62 (first published in 1978); J. Trebolle-Barrera, “Qumran Evidence for a Biblical Standard Text and for Non-Standard and Parabiblical Texts,” in T. H. Lim et al. (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context (London/New York: T & T, 2000), 89 – 106. 8 M. Greenberg, “The Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew Bible Reviewed in the Light of the Biblical Materials from the Judean Desert,” JAOS 76 (1956), 157 – 167; see also id., “The Use of the Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew Text: A Sampling from Ezechiel ii 1 – iii 11,” VTSup 29 (1978), 131 – 148, esp. 141; I. Young, “The Stabilization of the Biblical Text in the Light of Qumran and Masada: A Challenge for Conventional Qumran Chronology?,” DSD 9 (2002), 364 – 390. 9 F. M. Cross, “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert,” in F. M. Cross and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Myth of the Stabilization of the Text of Hebrew Scripture

39

another of his studies.10 Shemaryahu Talmon speaks about “standardized texts” used by “the socio-religious communities which perpetuated them.”11

II We now turn to the arguments used in favor of the assumption of the stabilization/standardization of the biblical text. In the writing of most scholars quoted above, there is no clarity regarding which text or texts were stabilized. The evidence for this period is usually presented as pertaining to the biblical text as a whole, while in my view it is only relevant to MT, as argued below. - Several scholars suggest a process of stabilization/standardization without offering any argument.12 - The precise exegesis by R. Aqiba and others, which explained every letter in the Bible, was noted as requiring a stabilized text.13 It is indeed logical for one to base one’s exegesis on the finesses of the biblical text only if everyone accepts the same text. This argument was countered by Albrektson who asserted that this type of exegesis only could have been applied to a single text in a limited environment.14 However, this exegesis pertained to MT only, and accordingly the limited text base did not require that the text be the standard for the whole country. - According to several scholars, the tradition of the three scrolls found in the Temple Court (y. Taan 4:68a) points to the creation of an official standard copy that was the basis for a process of standardization of the biblical text.15

10 11

12

13 14 15

MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1975), 177 – 195: “publication of an official text” (188), “promulgation of the official text and the demise of rival texts” (188). F. M. Cross, “The Fixation of the Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible,” in id., From Epic to Canaan: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 205 – 218. S. Talmon, “The Old Testament Text,” in R. P. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Bible (3 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 1:159 – 199, esp. 199 (repr. in F. M. Cross and S. Talmon [eds.], Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text [Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1975], 1 – 41). Thus O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, An Introduction, Including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and also the Works of Similar Type from Qumran: The History of the Formation of the Old Testament (trans. P. R. Ackroyd; Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 684; E. Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica (2d ed.; trans. E. F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 13. Thus Kahle, “Der Konsonantentext,” 74; Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions, 29; N. M. Sarna, “Bible,” EncJud (Jerusalem: Macmillan, 1971), 4:835; Greenberg, “Stabilization,” 166. Albrektson, Text, Translation, Theology, 54. Kahle, “Der Konsonantentext,” 74; Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions, 26; S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

40

Emanuel Tov

However, this tradition could point at most to, the creation of MT through an eclectic process, but even that assumption is problematic. This Talmudic tradition supposedly records the limiting of the differences between three specific texts by comparing their readings in each individual instance of disagreement. At the end of this process of comparison, presumably a new copy was created that contained the majority readings of these scrolls (the agreement of two sources against the third one). Although such an activity seems to be implied by the baraita quoted below, the procedures followed are unclear and therefore the story itself is not a trustworthy source for assuming this process.16 In the story of the three scrolls, the majority reading agrees with MT. ˘

Three scrolls of the Law were found in the Temple Court. These were the ma on (‘dwelling’) scroll, the za atute (‘little ones’) scroll, and the hy’ scroll. In one of these ˙ ˙ scrolls they found written, “The eternal God is (your) dwelling place (C9FB, ma on)” (Deut 33:27). And in two of the scrolls it was written, “The eternal God is (your) dwelling place (me onah, 8DFB= MT).” They adopted the reading found in the two and discarded the other. In one of them they found written, “He sent the little ones (za atute) of the sons of Israel” (Exod 24:5). And in two it was written, “He sent young men ˙ ˙ (na are = MT) of the sons of Israel.” They adopted the reading found in the two and discarded the other. In one of them they found written 498%, hw’, nine times, and in two, they found it written 4=8, hy’, eleven times. They adopted the reading found in the two and discarded the other [y. Taan 4:68a; Soph 6:4 probably has a better version of the last sentence: “In one 498% was written eleven times, and in two 4=8 was written eleven times.”].17 ˘

˘

˘

˘

˘

It is often claimed that at the end of the first century CE important decisions were reached at an official meeting devoted to determining the authoritative status of the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible. In this context, various scholars mentioned a meeting or council that was held at ‘Jabneh’ (Jamnia), between the years 75 and 117 CE. However, we possess no evidence for such an official meeting. In the ancient texts, we find only references to a bet din, ‘law court,’ a metibta’, ‘academy,’ a yesˇibah, and a bet midrasˇ (‘school’ or ‘college’) at Jabneh, and not a convention or council.18 According to Sid Z. Leiman,19 the only deci-

16 17 18 19

Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E. – IV Century C.E. (2d ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962), 21 – 22; Lange, “They Confirmed the Reading,” 75 – 76. J. Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 65 – 70 likewise criticized the relevance of this tradition for the assumed stabilization of the biblical text. For a thorough analysis of this tradition, see S. Talmon, “The Three Scrolls of the Law That Were Found in the Temple Court,” Textus 2 (1962), 14 – 27. See the analysis of J. P. Lewis, “What Do We Mean by Jabneh?,” JBR 32 (1964), 125 – 132. S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (TCAAS 47; Hamden, CT: Archon, 1976), 120 – 124.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Myth of the Stabilization of the Text of Hebrew Scripture

41

sion reached at Jabneh was that “the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands unclean” (m. Yad 3:5), that is, these books were given authoritative status. No decision was taken on the authoritative (canonical) status of all of the biblical books and there is no evidence regarding whether the activities of the Rabbis at Jabneh had any influence on the position of the text during that period. - According to some scholars, the negative influence of the destruction of the Torah texts in Maccabean times (1 Macc 1:56 – 58) brought about a process of stabilization, preceded by the writing of new scrolls (2 Macc 2:14 – 15).20 However, this hypothesis remains unproven. For one thing, there must have been other Torah texts outside the Temple besides those in the Temple. Therefore even after the burning of the Temple scrolls, others must have remained intact. - Basing themselves on the pre-Christian revisions of the Old Greek (OG) according to the proto-Masoretic text, such as in 8HevXII gr, Adam S. van der ˙ Woude, Siegfried Kreuzer, and Lange surmised that the revisional activity showed that this Hebrew text was standard at that early stage.21 However, this type of revision only shows that the same influential group that was behind the proto-Masoretic text was also behind the revision of the Greek Bible. This group desired the proto-Masoretic text to be as central in Greek as in Hebrew. This activity does not point to stabilization of the Scripture text. - Grammarians who stabilized the transmission of Greek texts in Alexandria may have influenced the transmission of the biblical text in Palestine.22 This argument, pertaining only to MT, was countered by Albrektson who claimed that the influence of the Alexandrian grammarians was limited to scribal procedures and terminology.23 - Some scholars suggested that several supralinear corrections and linear erasures in the Qumran scrolls evidence a correction towards MTor LXX, but the evidence is weak. Milik and Lange presented the evidence in 5QDeut as

20 Thus M. H. Segal, “The Promulgation of the Authoritative Text of the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 72:1 (1953), 35 – 47; Greenberg, “Promulgation;” Trebolle-Barrera, “Qumran Evidence.” 21 A. S. van der Woude, “Pluriformity and Uniformity : Reflections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament,” in J. N. Brenner and F. Garc†a-Mart†nez (eds.), Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A.S. van der Woude (CBET 5; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992), 151 – 169, esp. 161; S. Kreuzer, “Von der Vielfalt zur Einheitlichkeit: Wie kam es zur Vorherrschaft des masoretischen Textes?,” in A. Vonach and G. Fischer (eds.), Horizonte biblischer Texte: Festschrift für Josef M. Oesch zum 60. Geburtstag (OBO 196; Fribourg: Academic Press, 2003), 117 – 129; Lange, “They Confirmed the Reading,” 56 – 60. 22 Thus cautiously C. Rabin, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of the O.T. Text,” JTS n.s. 6 (1955), 174 – 182, esp. 182. 23 Albrektson, Text, Translation, Theology, 52.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

42

Emanuel Tov

˘

corrections towards the Hebrew base of the LXX.24 Likewise, according to Barth¦lemy, the base text of 1QIsab, as well as that of MurIsa, was corrected several times towards the proto-Masoretic text.25 In these texts, correction towards an external source is not impossible, in which case one would have to assume that these texts, which were already very close to what became the medieval MT, were corrected in the same direction. Such correction would involve the change towards a central (standard) text, such as a ‘corrected copy’ (869B LHE) mentioned in b. Pes 112a.26 However, most corrections agreeing with MT seem to be corrections of simple scribal mistakes;27 therefore it is likely that the original scribe or a later scribe or reader corrected the manuscripts towards their base text in the case of an error. This base text was identical to the medieval MT. - Upon the publication of the Murabba at fragments28 left behind at the time of the Bar Kochba revolt, some scholars realized that these scrolls were closer to MT than the Qumran scrolls. These scholars then suggested that stabilization must have taken place some time after the first revolt when the Qumran scrolls were left behind (70 CE) and before the Bar Kochba revolt (132 – 135 CE).29 The basis for this argument is the textual fluidity of the Qumran texts, while the Murabba at texts only attest to MT. The validity of this argument was criticized by Albrektson,30 who claimed that the Murabba at texts and the ˘

˘

˘

24 M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, R. de Vaux, Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumr–n (DJD III; Oxford: Clarendon, 1962), 169 – 171; Lange, “They Confirmed the Reading,” 62. Thus also N. Fern‚ndez Marcos, “5QDt y los tipos textuales b†blicos,” in G. Aranda et al. (eds.), Biblia, Ex¦gesis y Cultura: Estudios en honor del Prof. D. Jos¦ Mar†a Casciaro (Pamplona: EUNSA, 1994), 119 – 125. For an analysis, see E. Tov, “The Textual Base of the Corrections in the Biblical Texts Found at Qumran,” in D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (Leiden/New York/Cologne/Jerusalem: Brill/Magnes Press/Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1992), 299 – 314, esp. 307 – 308. 25 Barth¦lemy, Êz¦chiel, cxiii. This assumption is unlikely because the level of disagreement between 1QIsab and MurIsa on the one hand and the medieval MTon the other is much higher than the details in which the former had presumably been corrected. 26 See E. Tov, “The Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Bible Used in the Ancient Synagogues,” in id., Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays (TSJA 121; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 171 – 188. 27 See E. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004), 223 – 225. 28 P. Benot et al., Les grottes de Murabba at (DJD II; Oxford: Clarendon, 1961). 29 R. de Vaux, “Les grottes de Murabba at et leurs documents. Rapport pr¦liminaire,” RB 60 (1953), 245 – 267, esp. 264; P. W. Skehan, “The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism,” VTSup 4 (1957), 148 – 160, esp. 148; D. Barth¦lemy, Êtudes d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament (OBO 21; Fribourg/Göttingen: Êditions Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 352 – 355; id., Êz¦chiel, cxiii referring to MurXII (Minor Prophets). Cross, (“Fixation,” 217 [the “Pharisaic-Hillelite Recension”]) speaks of an earlier period of stabilization (“early first century C.E.”). 30 Albrektson, Text, Translation, Theology. ˘

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Myth of the Stabilization of the Text of Hebrew Scripture

43

medieval MT text are not identical.31 The facts seem to point to a process of stabilization some time around 100 CE, but we interpret the data differently. A renewed study of the Judean Desert texts now enables us to improve the analysis (see below). In our view, none of the arguments adduced in favor of an assumed effort towards the creation of a standard text holds ground. The idea of the creation of such a standard text is a mere hypothesis born in the minds of scholars, mainly as a result of misinterpreting the evidence. We thus suggest alternative interpretations of the evidence adduced as support for the assumption of a standard text: the exegesis by R. Aqiba and others explaining every letter in the Bible, the three scrolls found in the Temple Court, the decisions of the so-called council of ‘Jabneh’ (Jamnia), the early revisions of the OG towards MT, presumed corrections to MT in Qumran scrolls, influence from the Alexandrian grammarians in stabilizing the transmission, and especially presumed changes took place in Palestine between the period of the Qumran scrolls that resemble MT and the scrolls from the other Judean Desert sites that are identical to MT.

III Beyond the counter arguments adduced above the major arguments relating to the optical illusion of the Judean Desert evidence are as follows. 1) The distinction between the fragments found at the various Judean Desert sites as described in note 32 is crucial to our understanding of the evidence. The twenty-five texts that were found at sites in the Judean Desert other than Qumran display almost complete identity with the medieval tradition of MT when compared with codex L.32 On the other hand, the MT-like Qumran scrolls are merely close to codex L (named “Semi-MT” by Lange33), while belonging to the

˘

31 In recent times, E. C. Ulrich, (“Two Perspectives on Two Pentateuchal Manuscripts from Masada,” in S. M. Paul et al. [eds.], Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov [VTSup 94; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003], 453 – 464), likewise challenges the closeness of the Masada texts and MT. 32 This group of twenty-five texts (fragments of the Torah, Judges, Isaiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets, and Psalms) includes both the earlier site of Masada (texts written between 50 BCE and 30 CE) and the later sites of Wadi Murabba at, Wadi Sdeir, Nahal Hever, Nahal Arugot, ˙ – ˙135 CE (texts ˙ written and Nahal Se’elim dating to the period of the Bar-Kochba revolt in 132 ˙ ˙ between 20 and 115 CE). Good sources for the analysis of the Masada fragments are MasPsa dating to the end of the first century BCE, and MasLevb dating to 30 BCE–30 CE. Likewise, the differences between the medieval codex L and the well-preserved texts 5/6HevPs (50 – 68 CE) ˙ and MurXII (ca. 115 CE) are minimal, as shown in detail by Young, “The Stabilization of the Biblical Text.” 33 Lange, “They Confirmed the Reading,” 54.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

44

Emanuel Tov

˘

same textual family.34 The key to understanding this evidence lies in the correlation between the nature of the fragments and the socio-religious background of the archeological sites. What the earlier site of Masada and the Bar Kochba sites (mainly Nahal Hever and Wadi Murabba at) have in common, in contra˙ ˙ distinction to the Qumran scrolls, is that the people who left the scrolls behind at these sites (the Masada rebels and the freedom fighters of Bar Kochba) closely followed the guidance of the Jerusalem spiritual center in religious matters. They exclusively used the “proto-rabbinic” (“proto-Masoretic”) text that was embraced by the spiritual leadership of Jerusalem.35 Some scholars even stress the priestly influence on the leadership of the revolt.36 Most scholars treat the Masada evidence and that of the Bar Kochba sites in the same way, and therefore draw the conclusion that the Qumran evidence displays textual plurality, while the ‘later’ texts from the other sites reflect textual uniformity. However, the Masada texts (copied between 50 BCE and 30 CE) are not later than the Qumran texts. The Bar Kochba sites are later, since the scrolls found there were copied between 20 BCE and 115 CE. The differences between the sites are therefore not chronological but socio-religious, as suggested above. As a result, the finds from the Judean Desert do not support an assumption of stabilization or a standard text since both early (Masada) and late texts (the Bar Kochba sites) reflect MT, while Qumran reflects a textual plurality. During the same period, we thus find a stable text tradition at Masada and the other sites (MT) and textual fluidity at Qumran. This situation cannot be explained by the assumption of stabilization. 2) While there is no evidence for the assumption of a standard text or stabilization for the biblical text as a whole,37 during this period the MT-group

˘

34 For a detailed analysis, see E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3d ed., rev. and expanded; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 27 – 36; and Young, “The Stabilization of the Biblical Text.” 35 See the characterization by Greenberg, (“The Stabilization of the Biblical Text,” 165), of the people who left the Murabba at texts, basing himself on the scanty evidence available in 1956: “… since the spiritual leaders of this Second Revolt against Rome (132 – 135) were some of the most eminent Rabbis, there is no question as to the orthodoxy of this group.” 36 See D. Goodblatt, “The Title Nasi and the Ideological Background of the Second Revolt,” in A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport (eds.), The Bar Kokhva Revolt: A New Approach (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1984), 113 – 132. 37 Thus also Albrektson, Text, Translation, Theology ; van der Woude, “Pluriformity and Uniformity ;” E. C. Ulrich, “The Qumran Biblical Scrolls: the Scriptures of Late Second Temple Judaism,” in T. H. Lim et al. (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context (London/ New York: T & T, 2000), 67 – 87, esp. 86; id., “Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in First Century Judaism,” in M. L. Grossman (ed.), Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods (Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010), 145 – 161.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Myth of the Stabilization of the Text of Hebrew Scripture

45

remained internally stable.38 There was no development from pluriformity to uniformity but, in the words of van der Woude, “there was a basically uniform tradition besides a pluriform tradition in Palestine Judaism in the last centuries BC.”39 3) The internal stability ‘within’ the MT-group was intentional, but the apparent stability of the biblical text throughout Israel was not a planned process. When analyzing the situation throughout Israel, and noting that all the texts were textually stable after 70 CE, we are not faced with the result of planned developments in ancient Israel, but rather with a situation that was merely the result of historical events. From a textual point of view, it was a mere coincidence that MT was the only text remaining after the destruction of the Temple. This situation created an illusion of stability across the board, as if involving all the biblical evidence. However, after the year 70 only MT was left in Jewish hands. The LXX no longer exerted any influence in Jewish circles since it was now in Christian hands, Sam. Pent. was with the Samaritan community, and the Qumran scrolls were hidden in caves. Other scrolls may have been around in Palestine, the likes of those that had been imported to Qumran. However, we do not hear about such scrolls, probably because there was no organized community left in Palestine that would use texts like 4QJerb,d or 4QJosha, which deviate greatly from MT. However extensive the use of these texts may have been in earlier periods, we do not hear about them later, since the evidence after 70 CE is monolithically rabbinic.40 Therefore, again speaking in textual terms, the MTgroup did not thrust aside other texts. After the destruction of 70 CE, the MTgroup was not thought of differently than before 70 CE, but now there were no longer any competing texts. The other texts had not been ousted, and the protoMasoretic family was not victorious, as is often claimed in the literature. As a result, the concepts of stabilization and standardization, born out of a misinterpretation of the evidence, should be removed from our vocabulary. MT was a firm text throughout the period that is known to us, from 250 BCE onwards, so shaped because of conservative textual transmission, and not because of any form of stabilization.

38 Thus also van der Woude, “Pluriformity and Uniformity,” 161. 39 Van der Woude, “Pluriformity and Uniformity,” 163. 40 The Torah scroll from the synagogue of Severus and R. Meir’s Torah probably form an exception. See Tov, Textual Criticism, 112 – 114.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

John Van Seters University of North Carolina, USA

Did the Sopherim Create a Standard Edition of the Hebrew Scriptures?

Introduction To answer this question we must begin with Homer’s epics and their scholarly Überlieferungsgeschichte, as reconstructed by Friedrich Wolf in his Prolegomena to Homer (1795),1 and by other classical scholars from the early nineteen century onwards. A simple outline of their ‘text history’ goes like this. The tyrant of Athens, Peisistratus, in the mid-six century BCE gathered together a group of editors in order to collect various Homeric tales that were in circulation and combine them into two great epics that would then grace his newly constructed library. These texts became the two epics that we know today as the Iliad and the Odyssey. The texts were widely distributed throughout the Greek speaking world, so that variant versions developed as local ‘recensions.’ In the Hellenistic period Ptolemy I built a library in Alexandria and assembled the greatest collection of literary works of the Greek-speaking world, including many variant versions of Homer. These were often named after the city from which they came, with those from Athens being the most esteemed. He also brought together a body of scholars, and one of their tasks was to create a definitive text of Homer’s epics out of this diversity, and it is this text that became the textus receptus, which corresponds to the same text form that survives today. The two-part discussion of this text history, the edited text of Peisistratus and the text of the Alexandrians, became known as “higher and lower criticism.” This outline should sound very familiar to Old Testament scholars, because it corresponds directly to the development of higher and lower criticism in biblical studies, especially as it has to do with the Pentateuch. The Documentary Hypothesis created redactors who put the Pentateuch together in the post-exilic 1 F. A. Wolf, Prolegomena to Homer, 1795, Translation with Introduction and Notes by A. Grafton, G. W. Most and J. E. G. Zetzel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985). See also J. Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 133 – 184.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

48

John Van Seters

period, much as Peisistratus’s editors did with Homer, and the sopherim, corresponding to the Alexandrians, created the definitive version of the Hebrew Bible – a textus receptus – in the early Roman period, which ultimately became the Masoretic Text (MT). There is no mystery to the close correspondence between these two scholarly developments, because the two fields of biblical studies and classics were very close in the nineteen century and all biblical scholars were well grounded in the classics. The scholarly interchange went in both directions and each discipline was happy to cite the other field as evidence for its particular theory. However, what we can say without serious contradiction is that both the foundations and superstructure of this text-history of Homer have completely crumbled and are beyond repair.2 1) The Peisistratus redaction of Homer in the six century BCE is based upon a myth created anachronistically in the Roman period and embellished by scholarly imagination in the nineteen century.3 These learned redactors never existed. 2) The Alexandrian scholars never produced a standard edition of Homer. They were not contemporaries but each served as chief librarian at different periods over the course of more than a century. Each successive scholar, Zenodotus, Aristophanes, and Aristrarchus, created his own annotated edition of Homer, different from his predecessor. In the case of Aristarchus, he never produced a text that was separate from his commentary, and none of the three versions became the vulgate of Homer that we know today. It was not scholars but the book trade that decided what would become the standard text.4 It is that simple. What I find altogether remarkable is that scholars of the Hebrew Bible have chosen to ignore what has happened in classical studies and have persisted with various versions of this earlier Redaktionsgeschichte as a comparative model to account for both the formation of the Bible and its final textual form, all as part of a continuous “canonical” process.

2 See especially T. W. Allen, Homer : The Origins and Transmission (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924); Van Seters, The Edited Bible, 27 – 59. 3 An extensive treatment of this myth and its decisive debunking may be found in Allen, Homer, 225 – 248. 4 This is the position that is argued in great detail in R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginning to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968). See, in particular, Pt. 2, chs 2, 5 and 6.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Did the Sopherim Create a Standard Edition of the Hebrew Scriptures?

49

The Sopherim and the Homeric Scholars of Alexandria I will not address the “higher criticism” aspect of this Überlieferungsgeschichte. My record on this should be familiar to all by now.5 Instead, I will focus on the sopherim. Were they a group of scholarly editors, like the Alexandrians, and did they produce a standard text of the Hebrew Bible that became the textus receptus of the Jewish community as reflected in the MT? One of those who rejected the position that there was ever a standard Masoretic (or proto-Masoretic) text of the Hebrew Bible in antiquity was Harry Orlinsky, and he was followed by a few others.6 Yet this critique of the accepted text-history was largely ignored and the notion of an ancient standard canonical text persists, often for strongly ideological reasons. But the evidence in support of this orthodoxy is very weak, so I will review it once more. I have in mind such frequently cited champions as Saul Lieberman, Robert Gordis, Shemaryahu Talmon, and Emanuel Tov.7 The first kind of argument used is the effort to make a comparison between the activity of the sopherim and the scholars of Alexandria. The first one to make the connection between the pre-MT of the sopherim and the Alexandrian scholars was not a biblical scholar but Wolf, the great classicist in the late eighteen century. In this he was influenced by the Orientalist scholars, Johann D. Michaelis and Johann G. Eichhorn of Göttingen where Wolf had been a student. Both biblical scholars were quite critical of the Masoretic editing of what they perceived as the original unvocalized Hebrew text. In his work on the Prolegomena to Homer, Wolf specifically compares the scholia of Homer to the apparatus of the MT. He suggests that just as there is a critical edition (a paradosis) behind the present MT with all of its obscure notations, in a similar way, behind the scholia of Homer (particularly the Venice scholia) there is also a paradosis that was created as a standard edition by Aristarchus. It is this work that the later scholia totally obscured by their massive number of comparative comments. 5 For a review of this history in biblical studies see Van Seters, The Edited Bible, 185 – 297. 6 H. M. Orlinsky, “Prolegomenon. The Masoretic Text: A Critical Evaluation,” in C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1966), i–xlv. See also B. Albrektson, “Reflections on the Emergence of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible,” in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977 (VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 49 – 65; Van Seters, The Edited Bible, 60 – 83. 7 S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E. – IV Century C.E. (2d ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962); R. Gordis, The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere. Augmented Edition with a Prolegomenon (Philadelphia, 1937; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1971); S. Talmon, “The Textual Study of the Bible – A New Outlook,” in F. M. Cross and S. Talmon (eds.), Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1975), 321 – 400; E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

50

John Van Seters

From Eichhorn’s quite disparaging remarks about the Masorah and their questionable usefulness and Wolf ’s similar opinion about the scholia, Wolf came to the conclusion: Our Hebrew text derived from a paradosis; so, clearly, did our Homeric vulgate. In each paradosis a choice was made among readings, which we may none the less rework. In each text the paradosis itself has undergone some mutilation and corruption… The Masorah is full of all sorts of absurdities and feeble, superstitious inventions; this mass of scholia has no lack of similar contents. True, Greeks rave in one way, Jews in another.8

The basic problem with Wolf ’s comparison is the assumption that there was an initial fixed proto-MT text in the same way that he believed that there was an initial edition of Aristarchus that formed the vulgate of Homer, which as I have suggested, they did not do.9 But that still leaves the interesting question as to the extent of the similarities between the editorial practices of the Alexandrians, as reflected in the scholia, and those of the Masoretes. These similarities are very slight and very difficult to date to any specific period. Let us look at them: 1) The Alexandrian scholars used a number of scribal signs in their annotation of texts, some of a very general nature and others special to their particular scholarly work.10 One was the sigma and antisigma corresponding to modern parentheses marking a text that was out of place, and this seems to correspond to the inverted nuns in a few places in the Hebrew MT text (Num 10:35 – 36), and in a couple of Qumran texts.11 Another is the widespread use in Greek and Latin texts of dots or extraordinary points over certain words to indicate erasures of letters mistakenly made in the copying of texts.12 Both occur not only in the MT 8 See Wolf, Prolegomena, 18 – 26, 223 – 231, with quote on p. 25. 9 See Pfeiffer’s comments on Wolf and the scholia in History of Classical Scholarship, 212 – 219. Summing up the critical discussion on Aristarchus in the century after Wolf, Pfeiffer states: “These investigations led to the following conclusion: Aristarchus did write hupomne¯mata (commentaries,) with many references to the previous recensions, but probably only once; they contained, of course, lemmata from the Homeric text and ample textual criticism besides the main exegetical part. On the other hand, he did not make new separate editions of the text, but accepted the ‘vulgate’ text (koinai ekdoseis) for general use. All this would fit very nicely into the picture of Homeric scholarship in the third and second centuries B.C. Towards the middle of the second century the imperative demand was not for editing the text anew, but for explaining it in its entirety ; the absence of a more or less authoritative text arranged by the grammatiko¯tatos would make it easier to understand why the textual criticism of the Alexandrian grammarians had relatively little influence on the Homeric text itself, as it is preserved in papyri and manuscripts… [T]here was no separate edition of the text, but just a commentary in only one edition by Aristarchus himself” (215) What Aristarchus then did with this vulgate text was to ‘edit’ it by putting sigla in the text that would be explained and commented upon in the commentary, his hypomne¯mata. 10 Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 173 – 178, 218 – 220; Van Seters, The Edited Bible, 42 – 43. 11 Tov, Textual Criticism, 54 – 57. 12 The simple dot in Aristarchus seems to have had a different use, that of using a dot where a

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Did the Sopherim Create a Standard Edition of the Hebrew Scriptures?

51

but also in Qumran in both biblical and non-biblical texts. These kinds of markings become common in scribal practice in the editing of texts and say nothing about any direct connection with the Alexandrian scholarly tradition. Furthermore, they cannot be used to identify a particular family of texts as proto-MT texts. The dots above letters are especially common in 1QIsaa (a nonMT text). It is true that in the medieval and later periods the significance of these marks was no longer understood and they were considered a vital part of the sacred text and so were slavishly copied. The more specialized Alexandrian signs of the diplae, asterisk and the obelus are not found in MT, although the latter two do show up in the later work of Origen, but he developed his own distinctive use for these signs.13 For both the Alexandrian scholars and Origen, the signs were always intended to be accompanied by learned commentary. 2) The classification of texts as very accurate, vulgar/vulgate, and poorly written. Lieberman attempts to introduce into the discussion of the copying of biblical texts a classification that he finds in the scholia of Homer as if it were common to both the sopherim and the Alexandrians, when in fact it belongs to neither.14 It was the invention of the editors of the scholia in late antiquity, or perhaps their predecessors in early Roman times. Furthermore, he selects only three such terms, whereas there were several terms used to describe documents. The three terms Lieberman chooses are e¯kribo¯mena, ‘most accurate,’ koine¯, the vulgate text ‘in common use,’ and phaulotera, the text of ‘inferior quality.’ The first group Lieberman regarded as official, those edited by the sopherim, the second, vulgate texts, as those in common use in the synagogues, and the last group, the phaulotera, as those that could be found in small Jewish communities. This terminology, used also by Gordis and Talmon, and in a modified form by Tov,15 is completely artificial and misleading. This calls for some clarification. As Thomas W. Allen points out, the term koine¯ simply represents the vulgate text of the time and therefore the Homeric text that had become by usage the standard text.16 This text goes back before the time of the Alexandrians and persisted long afterwards. When cited by the scholia it most often means the majority text. It certainly was not a text created by Aristarchus or the other

13 14 15 16

line is suspect, similar to an obelus. See Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, 218. In fact, each Alexandrian scholar had his own idiosyncratic uses for critical signs. Origen was a scholar trained in the Alexandrian tradition who adopted its use of critical signs, notably the asterisk and the obelus, for his own editing of the Greek vulgate, the koine¯. See Allen, Homer, 315 – 320; Van Seters, The Edited Bible, 83 – 92. Lieberman, Hellenism, 22 – 27. Gordis, The Biblical Text, xxxi–xxxii; S. Talmon, “The Three Scrolls of the Law that were Found in the Temple Court,” Textus 2 (1962), 14 – 27, esp. 14 – 15; Tov, Textual Criticism, 192 – 195. Allen, Homer, 271 – 282, 302 – 327. This is a very detailed study of the meaning of koine¯ as the vulgate text in antiquity.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

52

John Van Seters

Alexandrians. It was a medium length text and it still contained many plusses that the scholars had rejected as un-Homeric and marked as such with a critical sign. However, the koine¯ did tend to preserve traces of the digamma, which the scholars no longer understood and therefore emended. But one of the koine¯’s weaknesses is that there was a tendency towards modernization of grammatical forms and language into the koine¯ dialect, which the Alexandrians resisted. Where this was strongly in evidence, the text could be characterized as phaulos or eikaios. Allen sums up his discussion thus: We conclude that the koine¯ or vulgate adduced by Didymus in his commentary – if not by the Alexandrians themselves – consisted of the ordinary or uncorrected copies produced by the book trade, whose general characteristic was an increasing modernity in syntax, vocabulary, and phonetics. In most of these points the vulgate was “careless” and even “bad.” The principle aim of the professional critic, Alexandrians and others, was to stay the course of the modernizing process by restoring older forms and words. Their procedure was good except as regards the digamma.17

On the other hand, a text that was carefully copied and conservative in its approach to the text and of good quality, would be characterized as e¯kribo¯mena, ‘very accurate’ or chariesteros, ‘very elegant.’ These quality texts tended to be the politikai, those that were imported from various cities and countries by the Alexandrian library, especially those from Athens, and such texts were rated highly by the scholia.18 Each was identified by its city of origin. They did not all go back to one text tradition, but often varied from one another in their readings. A third group of texts were those of the Alexandrian scholars and their later successors in the Roman period, and these were always treated separately from the city texts and from each other. It is a grave over-simplification to make out of all this a model of classification that is appropriate for the texts of the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, this classification belongs to the scholia of the late Roman period and is a highly abbreviated and stylized version of earlier commentaries; thus, it is very difficult to know how much of it goes back to the Alexandrians. In no case can it be shown that this scholarly tradition had any impact upon the standard text of Homer reflected in the medieval mss. The only persons interested in comparing Aristarchus’s readings of Homer with the koine¯ were scholars. The general public and the book-sellers could not care less about them.19 As Allen points out, for Origen the vulgate (koine¯) meant the Septuagint in the 5th column of his Hexapla, as distinct from the other Greek versions, which 17 Allen, Homer, 282. 18 Allen, Homer, 283 – 296. 19 Allen, Homer, 302 – 311.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Did the Sopherim Create a Standard Edition of the Hebrew Scriptures?

53

were identified by names of their editors/translators (just as the Alexandrian and some others were in the scholia).20 Although Tov gives up the explicit use of Lieberman’s tripartite division of texts and its terminology, he still retains the division between ‘official’ and ‘vulgar,’ with only the official ones being used for the liturgy and in synagogues.21 But this gets him into some difficulties. First, the ‘vulgar’ texts are Lieberman’s vulgate koine¯ texts, and this leads to a lot of confusion about the nature of these texts. As seen above, the koine¯ texts are both the majority texts and the texts rendered in the common late Greek language.22 However, there was no attempt to modernize the biblical texts into a late Hebrew, such as that reflected in the Mishnah. The common language in use by Jews in Syria-Palestine was Aramaic. Second, Tov must classify the Severus Scroll, the elegant scroll of R. Meir, and the Nash papyrus as vulgar and unofficial, but they were surely all used in the synagogues and for liturgical purposes, as even Lieberman acknowledged. The Severus Torah Scroll and R. Meir’s Scroll both had close links to the Temple. R. Meir, a favored student of R. Aqiba, was a professional scribe who made elegant copies, almost certainly for synagogues, and non-MT variants from his scroll are quoted in the various rabbinic sources. Orlinsky frequently pointed out this fact as proof that there was no fixed MT tradition as late as late antiquity, and we can say nothing about the time between those high quality texts and the MT texts that come to light in the ninth century.23 3) Mention of R. Meir as a scribe brings up the question: who exactly were the scribes and what was their relationship to the Rabbis? The notion perpetrated by the Mishnah that the sopherim represent a vital continuity between Ezra the scribe and the rise of the Rabbis in the transmission of the Mosaic tradition is a gross anachronism. Scribes are professional copyists of every kind of text and belong to every age, so the age of the sopherim is a myth. By contrast, as Elias Bickerman points out, the Rabbis never regarded themselves as sopherim but rather sages who emphasized the ‘oral’ transmission of the tradition.24 It was R. Meir who broke this mold and transcribed the oral tradition into written form. He was a scribe by trade and also copied ‘elegant’ and ‘accurate’ biblical texts for a living. However, it is clear, that most Rabbis who were not scribes did not understand scholarly scribal practice, as we shall see. Their text was primarily an oral spoken text, not the written one, and one that often differed from the MT 20 Allen, Homer, 315 – 320. 21 Tov, Textual Criticism, 192 – 195 22 For a discussion of the language of the Septuagint as koine¯ see N. Fern‚ndez-Marcos, The Septuagint in Context (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 3 – 16. 23 Orlinsky, “Prolegomenon,” xx. 24 E. J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988), 163.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

54

John Van Seters

tradition; hence, the necessity of the ketiv-qere notations when a vocalization was introduced, as James Barr argued.25 So the Rabbis would hardly be the ones responsible for a standard ‘written’ version of their text. The Rabbis’ oral text was apparently different from the vulgate text! Contrary to Gordis and others, the ketiv-qere cannot be used as evidence of scribal corrections of a master copy of the Torah.

The Sopherim and the Master Scroll in the Temple The second kind of argument has to do with proof of editorial activity by the sopherim in the creation of a master text. We are told that this master text was kept in the Temple court and was used to edit and correct faulty texts. Furthermore, Lieberman and others point to the existence of three variant Torah texts in the Temple and how they were used in editing the Torah.26 Each of these confusing pieces of evidence of editorial activity allows for a wide range of interpretation, most of it presented with a lot of imagination. 1) Was there a master text in the Temple that was used as an exemplar to control the production of a standard text? There are references in the Mishnah and Talmud to a “Scroll of the [Temple] Court,” and that correctors of (biblical) documents could use this text to make copies and that their wages would be paid for out of the Temple funds. Now we know nothing more about the nature of this supposed text, except that it was an elegant exemplar from which to copy and collate new texts. Concerning this Temple scroll Tov suggests the following as its function: The temple employed professional maggihim, ‘correctors’ or ‘revisers,’ whose task it was to safeguard precision in the copying of the text: “Maggihim of books in Jerusalem received their fees from the temple funds” (b. Ketub. 106a). This description implies that the correcting procedure based on the master copy in the temple was financed from the temple resources which thus provided an imprimatur. This was the only way to safeguard the proper distribution of precise copies of Scripture. Safrai even suggests that the pilgrims who came to Jerusalem had their biblical texts corrected by the temple scribes.27

25 J. Barr, “A New Look at Kethibh-Qere,” OTS 21 (1981), 19 – 27; also J. Barton, Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early Christianity (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 123 – 130. 26 Lieberman, Hellenism, 21 – 22; J. Z. Lauterbach, “The Three Books Found in the Temple at Jerusalem,” JQR 8 (1917 – 1918), 385 – 423; Talmon, “The Three Scrolls,” 14 – 27; S. Zeitlin, “Were there Three Torah-Scrolls in the Azarah?,” JQR 56 (1966), 269 – 272; Albrektson, “Reflections,” 55 – 56. 27 E. Tov, “The Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Bible Used in the Ancient Synagogues,”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Did the Sopherim Create a Standard Edition of the Hebrew Scriptures?

55

˘

˘

I believe this interpretation of such a scribal practice of ‘correcting’ texts is a little misleading. What is being described is the practice of making a text from an elegant copy and of ‘collating’ the text, or having a master scribe collate the text against the original. There is no evidence that a text of an entirely different origin was taken to a particular location to be ‘corrected’ so that it would match a very specific standard text. All quality texts were collated for accuracy no matter how carefully they were copied (Rabbinic sources refer to such elegant texts as ‘royal texts.’) There was, in fact, a widespread practice in the Roman world in which scribes could go to a city library in order to use an elegant exemplar of a classical work from which to produce an expensive, high quality text for a rich patron.28 This practice may well have existed in various prominent synagogues and it is probable that the Rabbis are merely projecting this practice back into the time of the Temple, as they did with so many other practices. This says nothing about a specially edited and standardized text to be viewed as a “canonical” text, and all the evidence of other major ‘elegant’ or ‘very accurate’ texts derived from the Temple collection, such as the Severus Scroll, a ‘royal’ text, speaks against any such interpretation of the Temple court scroll. The Rabbis who were certainly not scribes developed this notion of the Temple scroll as a way of asserting, probably against Christian apologists, that all of their biblical texts derived from, and were collated against an accurate ancient Temple scroll. 2) The three texts in the Temple. The rabbinic remarks about three curiously named scrolls belonging to the Temple court are quite confusing and have given rise to much speculation.29 A rabbinic tradition dating to the third century simply stated: “Three scrolls were found in the court [of the Temple], the me onah scroll, the za atuteh scroll, and the hy’ scroll.” From this statement alone ˙ ˙ it is not clear what kind of scrolls these were and whether the remark about the Temple court is just anachronistic, as many such remarks are. However, much later rabbinic commentary identifies these three scrolls as Torah scrolls, but such names for Torah scrolls seems very unlikely.30 The commentary then goes on to explain these names in various ways, but the one explanation that has attracted most attention is the one that describes them as each containing a certain defect. It states: chp 12, 10 in Collected Papers 2008, www.emanueltov.info. I wish to thank Emanuel Tov for directing me to his collected papers. 28 There is the account of Eusebius supplying Constantine with fifty luxury biblical texts (whether of the New Testament or of the Hexaplaric text of the Septuagint is uncertain) for use in the new churches in Constantinople. These were undoubtedly produced under his supervision in the scriptorium of the library of Origen in Caesarea. The great majority of vulgate texts were undoubtedly produces by the booksellers. See T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), 124 – 125. 29 See above n. 22. 30 Lauterbach, “The Three Books,” 398 – 401.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

56

John Van Seters

˘

In the one they found written me on ’elohe qedem and in the other two was written me onah ’elohe qedem. They adopted the [reading of the] two and discarded the one. In one they found written “he sent the za atuteh bene Yisra’el” and in the two was written ˙ ˙ “he sent the na are bene Yisra’el,” They adopted the two and discarded the one. In the one they found hy’ written nine times and in two eleven times. They adopted the two and discarded the one.31 ˘

˘

˘

˘

Now at first glance this does look like learned scribes engaged in critical editing of the text of the Torah. But there are lots of problems with making sense of this passage. The text is said to be named after a single defect in it, but in the first instance, the name me onah does not describe the defective text, which has me on, but the two correct texts. In the second case, the chance that a good text of the Torah would have an Aramaic term for Hebrew na are in it seems extremely unlikely. This reads more like a Targum or an example of modernization that was typical of Greek koine¯ (‘vulgar’) texts. The third one has as its salient feature of a distinctive text a marker that would seem to be relevant only to vocalized texts and is no more likely than the other two. Another problem is the way in which the critical process is described. This cannot be a way of deciding on the best text because each has a defect that the other two do not have. So what text do they discard? Is it a way of creating an eclectic fourth text? But nothing is said about a fourth text, and that also seems very unlikely. Why were the defective texts not simply corrected if a single model text existed? Lieberman makes a remark about these temple texts that at first sight appears to be a persuasive argument for interpreting them as editing the biblical text. He attempts to explain this textual comparison in the rabbinic sources by comparing their frequent use of the phrase “they found written” with what he claims corresponds to a terminus technicus used by the scholiasts of Homer (evqolem cecqall]mom, ‘we found written’) when the scholiasts were comparing the different readings in the Homeric texts.32 The problem with this comparison is that the citation he gives in Arthur Ludwich’s Aristarchs homerische Textkritik (I, 45) does not contain this phrase. Nor can I find it in over 500 pages of scholia notes that I have scanned.33 In fact, the rabbinic remarks do not in any way reflect the style of citation of sources in the scholia. At most we can suggest that this is an attempt by the Rabbis at imitating the methods of text scholars, suggesting that the sopherim of the Second Temple did the same thing, and they used these curiously named texts found in early rabbinic sources to suggest the same kind of critical activity. Now texts in the scholia ˘

˘

31 For the various versions of this text see Lauterbach, “The Three Books,” 419 – 420, n. 2; and Talmon, “The Three Scrolls,” 16 – 17. 32 Lieberman, Hellenism, 21, n. 11. 33 H. Erbse, Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Scholia Vereta) (vol. 1; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969); see also the examples of scholia in Allen, Homer, 271 – 298.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Did the Sopherim Create a Standard Edition of the Hebrew Scriptures?

57

sometimes had names, but they were usually the names of places from which the texts came, or the names of scholars associated with a particular text. Yet the scholiasts were not creating an eclectic text but only making critical notes on particular readings in the Homeric text. They had no control over the choice of Homeric texts produced by booksellers, and they certainly could not remove defective texts from circulation. So the three texts of the Temple tell us nothing about any standardization of the biblical text.

The Sopherim and the Qumran Scrolls The widely accepted scholarly dogma that the sopherim were responsible for establishing a fixed text of the Hebrew Bible by the early Roman period was developed before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, and in the early years of their publication there was a frantic effort to adjust the old theories to this new reality. However, it is becoming increasingly evident that all of these adjustments do not work. There are just too many examples of evidence that undermine the whole theory of an edited textus receptus in antiquity. The scribes of Qumran do not seem to have the slightest problem with a multiplicity of textual versions and there is no evidence that they made any attempt to create a specially edited version out of this diversity. It would appear that they continued to copy these different forms of the text down into the Roman period. Eugene C. Ulrich, who also disputes the notion of a textus receptus in antiquity, points out that the Isaiah scroll 1QIsaa was clearly produced as a superior text, although it does not correspond to the MT text tradition, whereas 1QIsab does belong to the MT tradition, and yet it survives only as a “vulgar” text.34 This view apparently contradicts that of Tov who argues that 1QIsab is a deluxe superior text and 1QIsaa is merely a vulgar text.35 This calls for some additional comments on these texts. 1) Is the Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa a luxury scroll? Tov points to the high number of corrections in the scroll to disqualify it as a high quality scroll. However, the number of corrections in a quality text does not disqualify it from being a deluxe text. All quality texts were collated, whereas the vulgar texts were often not collated by an independent expert and so had fewer corrections (but perhaps not fewer mistakes). Collation prevents serious major omissions and additions to the original text being copied, as often happened with “vulgar” texts. The kind of 34 E. C. Ulrich, “Our Sharper Focus on the Bible and Theology Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls,” CBQ 66 (2004), 3 – 4. 35 E. Tov, “The Text of Isaiah at Qumran,” in Collected Papers 2008, www.emanueltov.info, chp 5, 10 – 11.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

58

John Van Seters

corrections made with numerous correction dots also makes 1QIsaa special, and it has many other features that indicate that it was a highly regarded text in spite of its corrections, not the least of which was its careful preservation, in comparison with 1QIsab. Note also its wide top and bottom margins and number of lines. 2) What does the similarity of the Severus Scroll to 1QIsaa suggest? The characterization of 1QIsaa as ‘vulgar’ on the basis of its similarity with the Severus Scroll is just a matter of prejudice. In fact the Severus Scroll was almost certainly a scroll of the highest quality and a Temple scroll. Lieberman, in fact, argues that The Severus scroll was a Temple scroll with a distinctive early script and that as such it possessed ‘some authority’ and “probably represented the general vulgata of the Jews in the first centuries C.E.”36 Thus, 1QIsaa may well have been a copy of it, or at least one in that same tradition. There is no evidence whatever that MT was the standard text in Palestine at the time that 1QIsaa was produced. 3) Is 1QIsaa a synagogue text? The use of special signs and markings for paragraphing and reading in 1QIsaa all point to the exceptional status of this text. That is exactly what you would expect in a synagogue text. Furthermore, the condition of the text reflects a great deal of use and careful repair, which also reflects its liturgical use.

The Proto-MT Texts and the Medieval Mss

˘

Let me now turn to the more general principle that lies behind the notion of a common edited or collated text as the source for both the proto-MT texts, such as those found at Masada and Murabba at, and the medieval Mss Tov states that “to find ancient and medieval identical textual evidence is not very common,” and therefore requires an explanation. He continues: The logic prevailing today could not have been different from that of ancient times. It seems to us that identity between two or more texts could have been achieved only if all of them were copied from a single source, in this case (a) master copy (copies) located in a central place, until 70 CE probably in the temple, and subsequently in another central place (Jamnia?). The textual unity described above has to start somewhere and the assumption of master copies is therefore necessary.37

Now this was precisely the logic that was used to support the notion that the scholars of Alexandria, and Aristarchus in particular, were responsible for the great uniformity of Homeric mss in the medieval period down to the time of the 36 Lieberman, Hellenism, 23 – 24. 37 Tov, “The Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic Bible,” chp 12, 8.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Did the Sopherim Create a Standard Edition of the Hebrew Scriptures?

59

printing press. Furthermore, the ancient evidence of Homeric papyri from the Egyptian desert was also invoked to support this position. There was considerable diversity in the Homeric text tradition, based upon these papyri, down to about 150 BCE, but from the mid-second century BCE onward we have a unified medium text tradition that agrees with the medieval mss. Thus, the Alexandrians are given credit for this master text. The only problem with this logic is that the scholia make clear that the Alexandrian annotated texts of Homer do not correspond with the vulgate text. It would appear that for various reasons the book sellers adopted the medium text and it became the preferred one, and the rest just disappeared from use. There is therefore no need whatever for a single master text to explain textual uniformity in the medieval period, either for Homer or for the biblical text. Furthermore, the medieval mss collection created by Benjamin Kennicott (and supplemented by Giovanni B. de Rossi)38 was based upon the assumption that one could find in these mss the single original Hebrew text behind all of the subsequent errors and corruptions made by the copyists.39 This restored original would then correspond to the original unpointed Hebrew Bible that had been mutilated by the Masoretic editors. Beginning with this conviction, formulated for reasons of religious conviction, Kennicott found what he was looking for. It never occurred to him and other scholars who used his work to suspect that some of the ‘corrupt’ readings in the mss might actually reflect different text traditions.40 Among the medieval mss there are still present readings that correspond to the Vorlage of the LXX and variants found at Qumran.41 Consequently, the correspondence between the proto-MT texts and the medieval mss should not be overstated. It was above all the activity of the Masoretes in the vocalization of a particular form of the Hebrew text and an increasing dependence of Jews on this pointed form of the text that led to its almost universal acceptance as the standard textus receptus, and this process was crowned by its publication in a printed codex form in the sixteen century. Tov has also recently made the claim that all of the scrolls used in the synagogues of Judea and Galilee were proto-MT texts. This is based upon the fact that the biblical scrolls found in the Masada synagogue were of the proto-MT type, the only synagogue that has yielded such mss evidence. However, it seems to me 38 B. Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum hebraicum cum variis lectionibus (vols. 1 – 2; Oxford, 1776 – 1780); J. B. de Rossi, Variae lections Veteris Testamenti (vols. 1 – 4; Parma, 1784 – 1788). 39 See the remarks in R. C. Fuller, Alexander Geddes 1737 – 1802. A Pioneer of Biblical Criticism (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1984), 35 – 37. 40 See B. J. Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions: The Hebrew Text in Transmission and the History of the Ancient Versions (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1951), 19. 41 See J. Revell, “Masoretic Text,” ABD (1994) 4:598.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

60

John Van Seters

˘

that far too much is made of the few scroll fragments at Masada. This assumes a complete uniformity of practice in all synagogues. That is not all of the evidence. In the early Roman period, Masada represented a rather extreme sect of Judaism, the Zealots. It is risky to consider it as ‘mainstream.’ As indicated earlier, there is good reason to assume that both the scrolls produced by R. Meir and the Severus scrolls were used in synagogues.42 As we have heard in his latest presentation today, Tov no longer appeals to the conformity of all synagogues in Judea and Galilee to an ‘edited’ master text, but to the fact that after 70 CE, the MT was the only one left, the one that belonged to the rabbinic community, and now there were no longer any competing texts. Yet this judgment is based upon a very select body of texts (the Murabba at texts) and must play down the evidence of other texts within the rabbinic literature, such as the R. Meir scroll. Furthermore, Tov makes the argument that any biblical text that corresponded too closely with the Christian Old Testament or the Samaritan Pentateuch was suspect and this left the field open for the proto-MT text, the form of the text that eventually won out. Yet this argument is also suspect for two reasons. First, the Christian Bible that the Rabbis rejected was the Greek Bible and not any particular Hebrew text, and their response was simply to produce a number of alternative Greek translations. There is no particular evidence that one of these new translations was preferred over the other. They did not reject the Hebrew text of the Vorlage as such, and some evidence of its continued existence is still present in the medieval manuscripts. Second, the Rabbis did not reject the Samaritan Pentateuch tradition as such but only certain references to Gerizim, which they ‘emended’ for purely ideological reasons. Ulrich observes that in the oldest manuscript of the Book of Joshua, 4QJosha, a fragment containing the end of Joshua 8 is followed by the beginning of chp 5.43 This arrangement suggests that the altar was set up at Gilgal, which is exactly what one would have expected in the original text. Now it is clear that in the Samaritan Pentateuch this activity of setting up the stones on which to inscribe the law was transferred from Gilgal to Mount Gerizim, to legitimate the temple there, and that also led to the shift of the episode of altar building from Gilgal in Joshua 4 to Gerizim in Joshua 8. The MT follows this text tradition but then deliberately changes the references from Gerizim in Deut 27:4 and Josh 8:30 to Mount Ebal. Thus the MT text represents a very late ideological revision of a text that is in the Samaritan Pentateuch text tradition. This series of deliberate revisions cannot be attributed to the sopherim, if one is to assume that they are scribal scholars. Apparently, whether it was the Samaritans or the Jewish Rabbis, it was not a matter of adhering to a particular text tradition – a notion 42 Tov, “The Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic Bible,” chp 12, 1. 43 Ulrich, “Our Sharper Focus,” 5; Van Seters, The Edited Bible, 337 – 338.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Did the Sopherim Create a Standard Edition of the Hebrew Scriptures?

61

that was quite foreign to them – but of emending a text to suit their ideological purposes when this was sufficiently important to them.44

Conclusion Let me make a few general concluding remarks: 1) If we wish to take the analogy of the text-tradition of Homer seriously, then we must conclude that it was the common vulgate text of the Hebrew Bible that is reflected in the medieval Mss and the Masoretic text tradition, and the high quality texts, such as the Severus scroll and R. Meir’s Torah scroll gradually disappeared from use. This is what also happened to the conservative high quality texts of Homer and to the scholarly editorial tradition of Aristarchus. There was never the equivalent of an edited master text that served as a model for the Hebrew Bible or any part of it. 2) A canon of literary or religious texts does not entail the necessity of a canonical text. Even when there were disputes between the Christian Bible as reflected in the Septuagint and the Hebrew Bible in use by the Rabbis and accusations about the other side corrupting the text, this does not mean that a particular form of the text was privileged above all others. The Rabbis could choose whatever text tradition suited their exegetical or homiletic interest. The notion that the halakhic or midrashic method, as exemplified by R. Aqiba, demanded a fixed text just cannot stand up to close scrutiny. 3) The development of standard texts was always the product of the marketplace. This, I believe, is now well attested for the classics in the Greco-Roman period. It is only with the rise of the printing press that learned scribes were hired by publishers to produce editions that they hoped would become the standard of the field. Such editions were not always the best or based upon the best Mss. This early modern process is anachronistically read back into antiquity. There was never an acknowledged textus receptus of the Hebrew Bible before the sixteen century, and then it was a case of a Christian publisher hiring a Jewish scholar who had to rely on somewhat inferior mss and faulty critical judgment. (The same was true for Erasmus’s New Testament.)45 The text becomes ‘canonical’ when it becomes familiar and the most common one in a particular religious community, and the one that sells the best. It has little to do with learned scribes.

44 Christians did the same thing with the New Testament. See B. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). 45 Van Seters, The Edited Bible, 117 – 121.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Arie van der Kooij Leiden University, Netherlands

Standardization or Preservation? Some Comments on the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible in the Light of Josephus and Rabbinic Literature

I It is a debated issue of how to evaluate the fascinating matter of the diversity or variety of biblical texts in the Second Temple period.1 According to a well-known theory subscribed to by a number of scholars the textual variety as attested by the copies found in the caves of Qumran and elsewhere should be regarded as evidence of a fluidity and multiformity ; textual uniformity and stabilization developed at a rather late date, i. e., after 70 CE.2 A few other scholars do not adhere to this view. They are of the opinion that the available evidence strongly suggests that a uniform, or stable textual tradition existed ‘alongside’ a multiform one in Early Judaism. This view is based on the observation that the protoMT family is attested by a large number of biblical texts, found in the Dead Sea region (Qumran, Masada), which date to the period before 70.3 However, as has been argued recently, these early proto-MT texts, as well as other textual data, are rather to be taken as evidence that the process of stabilization and standardization started at an earlier date, namely, about 50 BCE,4 or even as of 164 BCE.5

˘

1 For a history of research concerning to the question of how the Masoretic Text (MT) became the standard text, see A. Lange, “They Confirmed the Reading’ (y. Ta an. 4:68a). The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period,” in A. Lange, M. Weigold and J. Zsengell¦r (eds.), From Qumran to Aleppo. A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of his 65th Birthday (FRLANT 230; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 29 – 80, esp. 31 – 45. 2 E. C. Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids/Cambridge/ Leiden: Eerdmans/Brill, 1999); F. Garc†a-Mart†nez, “Rethinking the Bible. Sixty years of Dead Sea Scrolls Research and Beyond,” in M. Popovic (ed.), Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism (JSJSup 141; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 19 – 36, esp. 25 – 28. 3 See e. g. A. S. van der Woude, “Pluriformity and Uniformity : Reflections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament,” in J. N. Bremmer and F. Garc†a-Mart†nez (eds.), Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of Adam S. van der Woude (CBET 5; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992), 151 – 169. 4 A. Lange, “‘Nobody dared to add to them, to take from them, or to make changes’ (Josephus,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

64

Arie van der Kooij

These (three) theories testify to two models, the first one being based on the idea of stabilization or standardization as a development after (or partly during) a period of fluidity, and the second one being marked by the concept of a stable textual tradition alongside a multiform one. It is interesting to note that the second model does not seem to favour the idea of ‘standardization’ at all. So basically the issue at stake concerns a choice between the notion of ‘stabilization’ (after fluidity) or of ‘stability’ (alongside fluidity). In the following, I would like to contribute to this issue. Scholars have argued, and rightly so, that the textual data roughly speaking attest two scribal traditions. To quote Eugene C. Ulrich: the scribes… were at work along two lines. First, they often simply copied the individual books of the Scriptures as exactly as humanly possible. But secondly, sometimes the scribes intentionally inserted new material that helped interpret or highlight for their comtemporary congregation in a new situation the relevance of the traditional text.6

Emanuel Tov too distinguishes between two basic approaches in the Second Temple period, one ‘free’ and one ‘exact’.7 The idea that a number of texts were the outcome of an ‘exact’ or ‘accurate’ way of making copies is the only way to account for the presence of ‘proto-MT’ texts among the Dead Sea manuscripts. Hence, it is justified to regard the texts of the ‘accurate’ type as witnesses of the proto-MT. This raises the intriguing question of how to explain this phenomenon of a stable textual tradition which retrospectively can be termed ‘proto-MT.’ Was it due to pure chance that it ‘survived’ and eventually became ‘the’ text (MT)?8 I don’t think so because there is evidence which points to another direction. It is to be asked who might have been the ones who took care of ‘the text in front of the scribes.’ For example, the fact that 4QJera, dating to the end of the third century BCE, can be considered a witness of the proto-MT text of the book, indicates that there may have been a particular milieu in which, during the Hellenistic and

5

6 7 8

Ag.Ap. 1.42): The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in A. Hilhorst, E. Puech and E. Tigchelaar (eds.), Flores Florentino. Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino Garc†a Mart†nez (JSJSup 122; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 105 – 126, esp. 117; Lange, “They Confirmed the Reading,” 79. I. Young, “The Stabilization of the Biblical Text in the Light of Qumran and Masada: A Challenge for Conventional Qumran Chronology?,” DSD 9 (2002), 364 – 390. See also M. H. Segal, “The Promulgation of the Authoritative Text of the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 72:1 (1953), 35 – 47. Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls, 11. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2d ed. rev.; Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress Press/ Royal Van Gorcum, 2001), 189 – 190. For the term ‘survive,’ see Ulrich, Dead Sea Scrolls, 11.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Standardization or Preservation?

65

early Roman periods, texts of Scripture were preserved with great care as well as being transmitted in an accurate manner. Scholars like Saul Lieberman and Tov have advanced the view that temple circles played a major role in the preservation and transmission of the proto-MT tradition.9 I share this view because, as I will argue in the following section, the current evidence strongly points to a particular group of people in the temple as being responsible for the Scriptures.

II Seen from a rabbinic perspective one might think of the sopherim as the leading authorities being responsible for the Scriptures kept in the temple. According to our sources, such as the Mishnah, the sopherim were the ones who had the position to interpret the Scriptures in the early days, i. e., the pre-Tannaitic period.10 This is the more interesting because in rabbinic sources this title is also used for those who are supposed to have ‘corrected’ the text of Scripture (tiqqune sopherim). The term sopher if applied in these sources to scribes of earlier times, was used to designate leading scholars, beginning with Ezra, whereas the leading scholars of the Tannaitic period are referred to as ‘Sages.’11 However, although this tradition about the early sopherim clearly conveys the notion of scholars of great authority as far as the Scriptures are concerned,12 it does not help us to answer the question of who were the officials in the temple that were in charge of the ‘ancestral’ books.13 In view of the hierarchy of positions in the temple, it stands to reason to think 9 S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: Philipp Feldheim, 1950), 22 – 23; E. Tov, Textual Criticism, 28, 191. See also I. Young, “The Stabilization of the Biblical Text,” 369, 383, and A. A. Fischer, Der Text des Alten Testaments. Neubearbeitung der Einleitung in die Biblia Hebraica von Ernst Würthwein (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009), 23. 10 See E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135) (3 vols.; rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black; Edinburgh: Clark, 1979), 2:325; E. J. Schnabel, Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul (WUNT 216; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), 68; E. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts found in the Judean Desert (STDJ 54; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004), 11. 11 Notably, in a few instances the Sages are said to be responsible for the text of Scriptures; so e. g. in the tradition about the changes made in the Septuagint by the ‘sages’ for King Ptolemy (on this tradition, see G. Veltri, Eine Tora für den Konig Talmai. Untersuchungen zum Übersetzungsverständnis in der judisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen Literature [TSAJ 41; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994], 76 – 88). 12 See also J. Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 81 – 82. 13 See the Prologue to the Wisdom of Ben Sira where the books of Scripture are designated as “ancestral,” conveying the notion of authority.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

66

Arie van der Kooij

of the highest authorities, that is to say, the ‘chief priests,’ as the officials in charge. These priests, designated archiereis both in the NTand by Josephus, were the ones who constituted the highest rank of the priests officiating in the temple.14 To quote Jeremias, the “chief priests permanently employed at the Temple formed a definite body who had jurisdiction over the priesthood and whose members had seats and votes on the council.”15 A writing from Qumran, 1QM, contains a passage which is illuminating in this regard. 1QM 2:1 – 3 provides the following details regarding the priestly hierarchy of the temple: - the chiefs of the priests behind the High Priest and of his second, twelve priests to serve continually before God; - the twenty-six chiefs of the divisions; - the chiefs of the Levites to serve continually, twelve; - the chiefs of their divisions. The “chiefs of the priests,” representing together with the High Priest and his deputy the highest rank, are to be equated with the ‘chief priests’ in the sources mentioned above. They were serving permanently in the temple, and they were also the ones who were responsible for the temple treasures. Hence, it makes perfect sense to assume that they were the ones who were in charge of the Scriptures in the temple.16 The idea that priests were the keepers of the books kept in the temple is reflected in passages in the Hebrew Bible itself. Passages like Deut 31:26 (“Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark”) and 2 Kgs 22:8 (“I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord”) testify to the practice that books considered important were deposited in the temple. According to Deut 17:18, “the king shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, from that which is in charge of the Levitical priests” (RSV), which implies that priests were responsible for the copy of ‘this law’ kept in the temple. As argued above, the priests who were in charge were not ordinary ones, but leading ones. In his rewriting of Deut 31:9 Josephus says that Moses gave “this book” (Deut) and other books containing the laws to “the priests” (Ant. 4.304). As to the question which priests he might have had in mind, a passage in Against Apion (Ag. Ap 1.29) is of particular interest: 14 See J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period (London: SCM Press, 1976), 147 – 180. 15 Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 180. 16 For ‘archives’ as part of the treasury, and for documents being kept there, see Ezra 6:1; 1 Esd 6:22, and 1 Macc 14:49. For sacred books being preserved in the temple treasures, see Josephus, Ant. 10.58: “But, in bringing out the gold [namely, in the treasuries, 10.57], the High Priest Eliakas came upon the sacred books of Moses, which had been placed in the temple.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Standardization or Preservation?

67

The keeping of the records – a task which they assigned to their chief priests and prophets – and that down to our own times these records have been… preserved with scrupulous accuracy.

This statement is part of a section in which the trustworthiness of historiography is the issue at stake. In this connexion, Josephus among other things points to the care taken by Egyptians and Babylonians for their chronicles, ‘records’ from the remotest ages, and informs his readers that the ones who did so were priests in Egypt, and the Chaldeans in Babylonia. As is clear from the statement just quoted, Josephus claims that the ‘records’ of his own nation were preserved with the utmost care and accuracy, underlining in this way the trustworthiness of these documents. It has been suggested that Josephus is referring here to two different kinds of record – the priestly genealogies, and the Scriptures.17 However, the term used, anagraphe, strongly suggests that the passage is about the Scriptures only. This is not only in line with the way the books of the Egyptians and Babylonians are designated, but also with the way Josephus speaks about the Scriptures in Ag. Ap. 1.38, “our books contain the record of all time.” As is well known, the Jewish Scriptures are described and presented by him in Ag. Ap. 1.39 – 40 as mainly consisting of historiographical writings: the five books of Moses are said to comprise “the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver,” whereas the thirteen books of the Prophets are considered to contain “the history of the events of their own times,” having been written by “the prophets subsequent to Moses.” Only four books are said to represent a different kind of literature (containing hymns, presumably the book of Psalms, and precepts for the conduct of human life, presumably a reference to Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes).18 In the passage quoted above, Josephus states that the keeping of the records was a task assigned to “their chief priests and prophets,” but he also notes that these records have been preserved with great accuracy. This raises the question, who was in charge of what? In the light of Ag. Ap. 1.39, it seems reasonable to assume that the prophets were the ones who wrote the records, whereas then the chief priests were bestowed with the preservation of the books, just as in Egypt (Ag. Ap. 1.28). There is an interesting piece of evidence that supports our assumption regarding the role of these leading priests; it is a passage to be found in the Targum to the Prophets, Tg Zech 11:13: 17 J. M. G. Barclay, Against Apion. Translation and Commentary (vol. 10 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary ; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 24. 18 For the use of anagrafe (both sg. and pl.) as referring to the Scriptures, see also Ant. 1.12, 17. See S. Mason, “Josephus on Canon and Scriptures,” in M. Saebø (ed.), From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (until 1300); Part 1: Antiquity (vol. 1 of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 217 – 235, esp. 222 – 223.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

68

Arie van der Kooij

And the Lord said to me, ‘Write a record of their deeds on a writing tablet and cast it into the Sanctuary, into the care of a temple-officer’.

The prophet, Zechariah, is commissioned to write a particular record, and to deposit it into the temple, into the care of “a temple officer.” The word used here, amarkal, refers to a temple official responsible for the treasuries. The plural amarkelin in the Targum to the Prophets is best understood as referring to the body of the chief priests as we know them from other sources. According to Tg Jer 1:1, the prophet Jeremiah is said to be one of “the heads of the service of the priests,” who are also called in the same text, “the temple officers who were in Jerusalem.” This is a clear instance where the leading priests are equated with the temple officers.19 Interestingly, there are also a few passages in the Mishnah which seems to testify to the thesis that the chief priests were the authorities in charge of the Scriptures. Concerning the public reading at the Day of Atonement it is stated in m. Yoma 7:1: Then the High Priest came to read […] The minister of the synagogue used to take the scroll of the Law and give it to the chief of the synagogue, and the chief of the synagogue gave it to the Prefect and the Prefect gave it to the High Priest, and the High Priest received it standing and read it standing.

In this passage, the scroll of (one of the books of) the Law to be read was presented to the reader, the High Priest, according to a specific procedure: “a minister of the synagogue” gave the scroll to “the chief of the synagogue”, the latter then gave it to “the Prefect” who in turn gave it to the High Priest who finally gave it to the king. One gets the impression that this procedure, which is also described in m. Sot 7:7 and 7:8, testifies to a hierarchy of positions. This is at least clear as far as the Prefect (segan) and the High Priest, as well as the King are concerned. The Prefect is the Captain of the Temple who had a position just below the High Priest. However, the persons designated as “the minister of the synagogue” and “the chief of the synagogue” raise questions since they do not fit into what is known about the hierarchy of the clergy in the temple. Moreover, the rendering ‘synagogue’ for Hebrew keneset is far from certain because in that case one would expect the phrase bet ha-keneset. How then to translate the underlying phrases in Hebrew, h. azzan ha-keneset and rosˇ ha-keneset? They are best taken as ‘the servant of the assembly’ and ‘the chief of the assembly,’ the ‘assembly’ being a reference, in m. Yoma 7:1, to the people gathered at the Day of

19 On this issue, see A. van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches. Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments (OBO 35; Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 197 – 200.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Standardization or Preservation?

69

Atonement.20 Importantly, there is evidence in the Mishnah that the term h. azzan refers to a servant of one the chief priests. The passage of m. Tam 5:3 contains a reference to these ‘temple servants’ who in this instance are the servants of a certain Phinehas, one of the officers (chief priests) in the temple “who was over the (priestly) vestments” (m. Sheq 5:1; see also m. Mid 1:4).21 This Phinehas is also known to us from Josephus (War 6.390), where he is called ‘treasurer’. This sheds light on the other person mentioned in m. Yoma 7:1, “the chief of the assembly.” The relationship between ‘the servant’ and ‘the chief ’ is best understood if the chief is considered, just as in the case of Phinehas, one of the chief priests, the more so since this would fit in with the temple hierarchy as the chief priests were ranking below the Prefect. Thus, it seems that the passage quoted above can be read as follows: the servant of one of the chief priests brought out one of the book scrolls, which were stored in the treasure rooms of the temple, and gave it to his superior, a treasurer/chief priest, etc. All in all, it is likely to assume that the highest authorities, i. e. the chief priests, were in charge of the ancient books deposited and kept in the temple.

III The available sources indicate that the scrolls kept in the temple were deemed not only to posses great authority but also to represent texts that had been preserved, by the appropriate authorities, with the greatest care. This is the view of Josephus, as noted above on the basis of his statement in Ag. Ap. 1.29. At another place in the same work (Ag. Ap. 1.42) speaking about the reverence for the Scriptures he claims that “although such long ages now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable.” In the light of all the evidence now available since the discoveries of the ‘biblical’ texts from the Dead Sea region one is inclined to dismiss this claim.22 It is to be asked however whether this criticism does justice to the comment made by Josephus. The reason why he underscores the notion of an accurate transmission has to do with his apology of the Jewish Scriptures as being trustworthy from the point of historiography (see above). This could imply that his claim simply was made pour besoin de la cause. However, read in the light of the other passage quoted above (Ag. Ap. 1.29), the statement in Ag. Ap. 1.42 is not to be 20 I owe this suggestion to Prof. G. Stemberger (oral communication at the symposium), which is to be preferred to the proposal I made before (see van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen, 334: keneset in the sense of ‘storage’). 21 See Jeremias, Jerusalem, 172; on the ‘temple servants,’ hazzanim, see Jeremias, Jerusalem, 209. 22 See e. g. Lange, “Nobody dared,” 117.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

70

Arie van der Kooij

taken as referring to all kind of copies such as those found in the Caves, but rather to the text of Scripture that was kept and preserved in the temple. Rabbinic sources also show a certain knowlegde about the care taken for the scrolls of the holy books in the temple. This is clear from traditions, such as the Three Scrolls found in the temple,23 and the special college of book correctors.24 The picture of temple scrolls containing Scripture as being of good quality is also reflected in earlier sources. According to the Letter of Aristeas copies of the Law in circulation were deemed not accurate enough (§ 30). Hence, the High Priest of Jerusalem was asked to send not only the experts of the Law in order to make the translation, but also a copy of the Law from (the temple of) Jerusalem (§ 46). These books of the Law were considered the best ones as representing official copies which had been well preserved. This concept is in line with ideas prevalent among scholars in Alexandria who held the view that the so-called ‘city editions’25 were regarded the best exemplars of a given text. The story, accounted by Galen, about the copies of the three tragedians from the city of Athens is illustrative in this respect. It is told that the Ptolemaic king having borrowed from the Athenians: their official copies of the three tragedians – that is, those which formed the basis of public performances – […] had splendid copies on papyrus of the finest quality made by the library staff, and kept the Athenian exemplars.26

The same idea seems to be typical of the textual history of the work of Homer, because it has been argued that the copy kept in the archives of Athens was considered by Alexandrian scholars to be an official and trustworthy text of Homer.27 True, these ‘Alexandrian’ data, in particular the picture presented in the Letter of Aristeas cannot be regarded as direct evidence for the idea of an official text to be found in the temple of Jerusalem.28 Yet it provides a model which easily fits in with an ancient practice that important books were deposited in official places, such as the temple in Jerusalem, in order to preserve them. Hence, it is rea23 Sifre II, 356 (and other sources). On this tradition, see S. Talmon, “The three Scrolls of the Law that were found in the Temple Court,” Textus 2 (1962), 14 – 27. 24 y. Sheq 4:3,48a; b. Ket 106a. See Lieberman, Hellenism, 22. 25 It is to be noted that these ‘editions’ were “not the result of editorial activity” (Van Seters, The Edited Bible, 57). 26 P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 1:325. The official copies of Athens are designated as “the ancient books” (Fraser, Alexandria, 2:480). 27 E. Pöhlmann, Altertum (vol. 1 of Einführung in die Überlieferungsgeschichte und in die Textkritik der antiken Literatur, 3d ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008), 36 – 37. As to the ‘city editions,’ see also Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1:328, and G. Nagy, Homer’s Text and Language (Traditions; Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2004), 20 – 21. 28 See Lange, “They Confirmed the Reading,” 71.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

71

Standardization or Preservation?

sonable to assume that the books of Scripture kept in the temple – representing, one might say, the ‘city edition’ of Jerusalem – were preserved and transmitted with great care, as Josephus claims. In his view, this was the case from the Persian period onwards. This view is of course difficult to assess,29 but since the protoMT tradition is attested as early as the late third century BCE (4QJera), it can be said that this was the case from the Hellenistic era onwards. It therefore is likely that the temple text was regarded the ‘official’ text, just as in the case of the Athenian exemplar of the Three Tragedians.30 Or to put it this way : the chief priests did just their job by preserving the books deposited in the temple, and by transmitting them accurately. Hence, I agree with the following statement of Tov :

˘

… the masoretic family, which probably was the only acceptable text in Temple circles. In a way this text should be considered an official text, and this assumption would explain the great number of copies of it found at Qumran, and that it was the only text found at Masada, Nahal Hever, and Wadi Murabba at.31

IV All in all, it can be said that the MT goes back to to the text of Scripture that was kept in the temple and preserved with great care by the appropriate officials, the chief priests. Thus, the temple text represented a stable textual tradition. This is not meant to say, however, that this text was ‘fixed,’ or was transmitted, from the early Hellenistic period onwards up to the time of Bar Kosiba, without any change, correction or corruption. As is well known, Rabbinic sources contain a tradition about changes and corrections made, namely, the tradition of the tiqqune sopherim, and, although the details of this tradition are doubtful in most

29 The textual history of the book of Jeremiah is one of the most intriguing issues. Adrian Schenker is of the opinion that the proto-MT of Jeremiah represents an new official edition which goes back to the end of the third century BCE. See A. Schenker, “Est-ce que le livre de J¦r¦mie fut publi¦ dans une ¦dition refondue au 2e siÀcle? La multiplicit¦ textuelle peut-elle coexister avec l’¦dition unique d’un livre biblique?” in I. Himbaza and A. Schenker (eds.), Un carrefour dans l’histoire de la Bible. Du texte — la th¦ologie au IIe siÀcle avant J.–C. (OBO 233; Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 58 – 74, esp. 69. 30 As to term ‘official,’ it should be noted that it is not meant here as conveying the notion of canonical; it is only used here to indicate that it concerns a text kept at an official place and taken care of by official authorities. 31 E. Tov, “Scriptures: Texts,” in L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam (eds. in chief), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2 vols.; Oxford: University Press, 2000), 2:832 – 836, esp. 834. See also Fischer, Der Text des Alten Testaments, 91: “Wahrscheinlich wurde die protomasoretische Texttradition in Tempel-Kreisen intakt gehalten und von den Pharisäern und Sadduzäern fortgeführt.”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

72

Arie van der Kooij

cases, it is likely indeed that the (official) text of Scripture has been changed or corrected in some cases.32 To give an example of a textual change, I would like to focus on Isa 19:18. MT reads: In that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt which speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the Lord of Hosts. One of these (cities) will be called City of Destruction.

The reading EL88, ‘destruction,’ constitutes an emendation of the reading, attested by 1QIsaa and 4QIsab, that can be considered to be the original one: EL;8, ‘the sun.’33 Among the ancient versions, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (TgJon) is most interesting since it contains a rendering of both readings. As far as the second part of the verse is concerned it reads thus “Of the city of House of the Sun, which is about to be desolate, it shall be said, This is one of them.” The one city in Egypt is called here “the city of House of the Sun which is about to be desolate.” This rendering is not only based on the reading ‘the city of the sun (cheres),’ but presupposes also the notion of ‘destruction’ (heres) in the MT. Scholars have argued that TgJon here refers to the destruction of the Jewish temple in Egypt, in the nome of Heliopolis, by the Romans, in the year 73 (see War 7.421, 433 – 436).34 As we also know through Josephus, this temple was founded by Onias, member of the high priestly family (first half of second century BCE). He claimed that this temple in Egypt, in Leontopolis, was fully legitimized since it was predicted by the prophet Isaiah (e. g., Isa 19:19; see Ant. 13.68).35 The assumption that TgJon refers to this temple makes good sense since it fits the rendering ‘the city of House of the Sun’ (instead of, ‘the city of the sun’).36 As a matter of fact, the phrase ‘House of the Sun,’ which here functions as the name of 32 Tov, Textual Criticism, 194. See also A. van der Kooij, “Ancient Emendations in MT,” in D. Böhler, I. Imbaza and P. Hugo (eds.), L’Ecrit et l’Esprit. Etudes d’histoire du texte et de th¦ologie biblique en hommage — Adrian Schenker (OBO 214; Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 152 – 159. 33 As to the other ancient versions, see van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen, 216, 256; as for the Septuagint, see Die alten Textzeugen, 52 – 55. 34 See e. g. R. B. Gordon, “Terra Sancta and the Territorial Doctrine of the Targum to the Prophets,” in J. A. Emerton and S. Reif (eds.), Interpreting the Hebrew Bible. Essays in honour of E. I. J. Rosenthal (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 119 – 131, esp. 123; D. Barth¦lemy et al., Isae, J¦r¦mie, Lamentations (vol. 2 of Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament; OBO 50:2; Fribourg/Göttingen: Editions universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 149. 35 The tradition about Isa 19:18 – 19 and the temple of Onias is also attested in Rabbinic sources; see e. g. b. Men 109b. 36 Hence it is unlikely that Tg should be taken as referring to Heliopolis, as B. D. Chilton assumes (The Isaiah Targum [vol. 11 of The Aramaic Bible; Edinburgh: Clark, 1987], 39) because in that case one would expect the (literal) rendering ‘the city of the sun.’

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Standardization or Preservation?

73

the city,37 obviously refers to a temple.38 Moreover, the designation ‘House of the Sun’ is in line with the sun symbolism which was typical of Onias’ temple.39 So one may conclude that Tg Isa 19:18 reflects the idea that, although this temple was foretold by Isaiah, the prophecy should also be understood as referring to its destruction. But what does this passage mean to the issue of textual changes made in the text of Scripture, in this case in the book of Isaiah? There is a growing consensus for dating TgJon, as well as Targum Onqelos (TgOnq) to the Pentateuch, before 200 CE. Moreover, as far as the language (Aramaic) is concerned, scholars tend to date both targumim – at least the body of them – in the first half of the second century (before 135 CE), with Palestine as place of origin.40 This dating of TgJon is supported by an important feature of this translation, namely, by historical allusions resulting from an application of ancient prophecies to events in the time of the translator. For instance, Tg Isa 8:2; 29:1 – 2, and 32:14 are passages which refer to the destruction of the city (Jerusalem) and the temple in the year 70. As we know from Josephus and other sources, this type of interpretation was the expertise and privilege of leading priests. Interestingly, TgJon too contains evidence which points to a close relationship between this type of interpretation and priesthood. To begin with, it is important to note that, just as with Josephus, Jeremiah is presented in TgJon as a priest living in Jerusalem. Tg Jer 1:1 reads thus “The words of the prophecy of Jeremiah the son of Hilqiah, one of the heads of the service of the priests, of the temple officers who were in Jerusalem….” According to this text, the prophet Jeremiah belonged to the body of “the heads of the service of the priests, the temple-officers” (pl. of amarkal). Notably, the phrase ‘the priests’ in MT has been interpreted here as a reference to the leading priests in the temple. The designation ‘the heads of the service of the priests’ is to be equated with the phrase ‘the chiefs of the priests’ as attested in writings from Qumran (see e. g. 1 QM 2:1). These leading priests are also called, in our text, ‘the temple-officers.’ As I have argued elsewhere, these ‘officers’ are best understood as the priests who in other sources of the period are designated as archiereis, 37 See the phrase ‘the city (of) Jerusalem’ in TgJon (see e. g. Tg Isa 1:24; 25:2). The city being named after the temple is in line with the picture provided by Josephus about the place; according to War 7.427 this place was a ‘fortress’ with a temple, i. e., a temple city. 38 Compare Tg Jer 43:13 (about pillars of the house of the sun // the houses [= temples] of the idols of the Egyptians). 39 See R. Hayward, “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration,” in G. Vermes and J. Neusner (eds.), Essays in Honour of Yigael Yadin, JJS 33 (1982), 429 – 443, esp. 435 – 436. 40 For a recent discussion, see R. J. Kuty, Studies in the Syntax of Targum Jonathan to Samuel (ANES SS 30; Leiden: Brill, 2010).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

74

Arie van der Kooij

‘chief priests.’41 Unlike MT, the prophet Jeremiah is here presented as belonging to the leading priests of the temple. Presumably, this is based on the view that Hilqiah was considered to be the same as the High Priest at the time of king Josiah (2 Kgs 22:8). The term ‘prophet,’ however, is not only used in TgJon for a prophet in the past, like Jeremiah. It is also employed for someone who is able to ‘interpret’ prophecies as is clear from Tg Isa 21:11: He calls upon me from the heavens: Prophet, interpret for them the prophecy ; prophet, interpret for them what is about to come

The prophet is the one who by interpreting prophecies can tell what is ‘about to come.’ Both Aramaic versions, TgOnq and TgJon, contain passages marked by this type of interpretation. Examples are to be found in Gen 49; Judg 5; 1 Sam 2, and 2 Sam 23, as well as in the books of the ancient prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve.) As to ‘what is about to come,’ the prophet/interpreter announces, among other things, the ‘consolations’ to the people, particularly to the righteous (see e. g. Tg Isa 8:2; 18:4; 40:1; 62:12). The good news to be told by the prophet/interpreter is that Jerusalem “is about to be filled with people of her exiles” (Isa 40:2.) Or to put it with Tg Isa 54:1: Sing, O Jerusalem who was a barren woman who did not bear ; shout in singing and exult, [you who were] as a woman who did not become pregnant! For the children of desolate Jerusalem will be more than the children of inhabited Rome, says the Lord.42

Since both Targumic versions testify to this type of interpretation, it stands to reason to assume that their authors were ‘prophets.’ This leads to the question of who were these ‘prophets.’ This is a complex issue as far as our Targumic sources are concerned, but the following brief discussion may suffice for the sake of argument. To begin with, it is important to note that in TgJon the prophets are clearly distinguished from the ‘scribes’. So for instance in Tg Isa 29:10 where is about the ‘prophets,’ the ‘scribes,’ and the ‘teachers.’ This listing of authorities reflects a hierarchy of scholars. The ‘prophet’ is the one who has the ability and authority of the interpretation of prophecies, something which as far as TgJon is concerned does not apply to the ‘scribe,’ the latter being the teacher of the written Law (see e. g. Tg Judg 5:9). Of the ‘teachers’ it is said in our text that they ‘were teaching you the teaching (’ulpan) of the Law,’ that is to say, it was their task to teach the oral Law.43 41 See the literature mentioned in n. 17. 42 The italics are mine. For Jerusalem – Rome, see also Tg 1 Sam 2:5b and Tg Mic 7:8 – 11. For the Romans as the last kingdom, see Tg Hab 3:17. 43 Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen, 199. For a comparable listing of authorities from a

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

75

Standardization or Preservation?

The ‘prophets’ apparently are to be regarded as the highest rank of scholars, thus carrying the highest authority. As Tg Jer 1:1 (see above) suggests there is reason to believe that the ‘prophets’ are to be equated with the chief priests, the ‘temple officers’ in the terminology of the Targum.44 This is actually the way they are presented in the Didache (13:3): “the prophets, for they are your chief priests.” This sheds light on the fact that in all instances where MT refers to ‘priests and prophets’ in the temple, TgJon always offers the rendering ‘priests and scribes’ (see e. g. 2 Kgs 23:2; Jer 6:13; 14:18; 18:18). In comparison with Tg Isa 29:10 quoted above the following picture emerges: ‘priests’ ‘prophets’

and

‘scribes’

and

‘scribes’

(passim) (Isa 29:10)

It thus seems that ‘priest’ and ‘prophet’ were taken as persons of the same rank, namely, as the ones making up the body of the leading priests of the temple. Notably, this is in line with the expression ‘the chief priests and the scribes’ to be found in the NT (see e. g. Matt 20:18; 21:15; Mark 10:33). This picture also explains, in my view, why the term ‘prophet’ as found in the expression ‘priests and prophets’ in MT has been translated ‘scribes’ (‘priests and scribes’) in TgJon.45 Several suggestions have been made as to the rendering ‘scribe’ for ‘prophet’ in a number of passages in TgJon,46 but without taking into account the issue of the hierarchy – scribes below priests – involved. In summary, internal data indicate that the authors responsible for TgJon belonged to the milieu of the chief priests, scholars who were authorized to interpret prophecies by applying them to their own time. They were considered the appropriate authorities for this way of reading the ancient prophecies, very much so as with another figure of great authority – the priest designated as “Teacher of Righteousness” in the writings of Qumran. All this suggests that TgJon, and TgOnq as well, was produced by the authorities – the chief priests – who also were the ones in charge of the text of Scripture that was kept in the temple. Since TgJon shows a specific awareness of both readings in Isa 19:18, one may assume that leading priests were responsible for the emendation, or ‘correction’ (tiqqun), carried out in this passage, presumably some time between 73 and 135. TgJon helps us understand the background and reason of this textual change, and as I believe, in other instances as rabbinic perspective, see m. Sot 9:15. This passage distinguishes, in descending order, between ‘sages,’ ‘scribes/teachers,’ and ‘pupils’ (variant: ‘synagogue-servants’). 44 Van der Kooij, Die alten Textzeugen, 197 – 200. 45 See R. Hayward, The Targum of Jeremiah (The Aramaic Bible 12; Edinburgh: Clark, 1987), 36 – 37. 46 See E. van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel (vol. 1 of Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture, Leiden: Brill, 2002), 150 (and the literature cited there).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

76

Arie van der Kooij

well.47 As to the new reading in Isa 19:18, one can imagine that the authorities, who were convinced that the Jerusalem temple would be rebuild in the near future (see Tg Isa 53:5), wanted to indicate that the rival temple in Egypt would be destroyed – as it actually had happened in the year 73 –, thus making clear that this temple was illegitimate.48

V As stated at the outset, the issue at stake concerns the choice between two models, a) ‘stabilization’ and ‘standardization’ after a period of fluidity, or b) ‘stability’ alongside fluidity of the text of Scripture in the era from the third century BCE up to the second century CE. Most scholars subscribe to the first model – the copies found in the caves of Qumran and elsewhere – are seen as reflecting in one way or another a period of fluidity and multiformity, resulting into a diversity of texts, or texttypes; standardization is considered a secondary development which started after 70, or, possibly, before that date. However, in the light of the evidence put forward in the above the second model seems to recommend itself: stability of the text of Scripture kept in the temple alongside textual fluidity. It fits in with the phenomenon of ‘city editions’ known from Antiquity, and it also helps to explain among other things the presence of the proto-MT in Palestine as early as the third century BCE (e. g. the Vorlage of 4QJera). If so, there was no standardization or stabilization as far as the ‘temple text’ is conncerned.49 It also means that this text was not the result of a deliberate editorial activity.50 All this has led me to the conclusion that it would be best to distinguish between two procedures, the ‘preservation’ and transmission of the books kept in the temple, on the one hand, and the ‘promulgation’ and dissemination of Scripture by means of (all kinds of) copies – ‘accurate’ ones and ‘free’ ones –, on the other. Copies, both the ‘accurate’ ones and the ‘free’ ones were made, first and foremost, for reading and studying purposes. An early example of this practice 47 Given the way Isa 19:18 has been interpreted in TgJon, one could argue that the new reading was not meant to replace the older one but just to add another meaning to it. 48 See Hayward, “The Jewish Temple,” 440. The fact that Josephus in his War speaks about the temple of Onias both at the beginning of his work (1.31 – 33) as well as at the end of it (7.421 ff.), is a clear indication that the whole issue of this (rival) temple was considered important. 49 See Tov, Textual Criticism, 195. 50 See the conclusion reached by Van Seters, The Edited Bible, 60 – 112, on the basis of a critical analysis of Talmudic texts as well as in the light of what is known about the Alexandrian grammarians.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

77

Standardization or Preservation?

˘

can be found in Deut 17, where it is stipulated that the king should make a copy of the Law in order to “read” in it, so that he may “learn” to fear the Lord (v. 19). Copies were required in order to enable priests and scribes to read and study the ancient books, as did, so we are told by his grandson, Jesus ben Sira (see the Prologue to the Wisdom of Ben Sira). Moreover, the strategy to promote reading and studying of Scripture fits the Hellenistic culture of the period as this was marked by the production of books and by study and teaching in the setting of a school. However, copies made for these purposes were not meant to transmit, or replace, the exemplar of the temple.51 They could reflect this text in quite a close manner, but in order to enhance the reading and understanding of a given text or book it was also possible to produce copies containing all kinds of modifications, including texts belonging to the category of ‘rewritten’ Scripture.52 Interesting examples are 4QpaleoExodm53 and, possibly, 4QSama.54 As far as modifications of an exegetical nature are concerned, it is reasonable to assume that they were introduced by the appropriate authorities, to wit, those responsible for the production of copies, leading priests and lay scholars; they were not only made in order to help the reader to understand the text better, but also to promulgate a particular interpretation of it.55 As has been observed by scholars, since ca. 50 BCE copies were produced that are fully in line with proto-Masoretic (Masada and Murabba at). How to explain this phenomenon? Does it point to the standardization of a particular text, as is often assumed? In my view, it does not point to a standardization of the parent text (the temple text) itself (see above), but rather to a standardization as far as ‘copies’ for reading and studying purposes are concerned. The fact that the manuscripts in case all represent exact copies of the proto-Masoretic reflects a specific policy : instead of making all kinds of copies the biblical texts found at Masada and Murabba at testify to a policy according to which only exact copies should be produced.56 So one could argue that in disseminating the text pre˘

51 As far as we know, the temple text was only used for official occasions such as the public reading, by the High Priest, at feasts; see A. van der Kooij, “The Public Reading of Scriptures at Feasts,” in C. Tuckett (ed.), Feasts and Festivals (CBET 53; Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 28. For an example in the Hebrew Bible itself, see 2 Kgs 22:3 (public reading, by the king, of a book found in the temple). 52 On this type of literature, see now S. White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008). 53 On this text, see White Crawford, Rewriting Scripture, 23 – 29. 54 As to 4QSama considered as a kind of a rewritten bible, see A. Rof¦, “Midrashic Traits in 4Q51 (so-called 4QSam-a),” in P. Hugo and A. Schenker (eds.), Archaeology of the Books of Samuel. The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History (VTSup 132; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 75 – 88. 55 In my view, this also applies to translations of books of Scripture, be it in Greek or in Aramaic. 56 This may shed light on the tradition, noted above, about the temple correctors.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

78

Arie van der Kooij

served by temple authorities a kind of standardization was involved since copies made had to be reliable and accurate witnesses of this text.57 Finally, at outlined above, chief priests in Jerusalem were not only responsible for the books of Scripture kept in the temple (or, after 70, at some other place), but they were also the ones who produced TgJon to the Prophets, together with TgOnq to the Pentateuch. As is well-known TgJon is marked in many places, particularly so in the books of the ancient prophets, by modifications and interpretations. Interestingly, also after 70 ‘preservation’ could go hand in hand with ‘promulgation:’ leading priests were responsible for the text of Scripture kept as part of the sacred treasures in the temple, on the one hand, but they were also the ones who deemed it important to provide for a translation and interpretation of this proto-MT text. The same applies, in my view, to Josephus, who was also a member of the priestly aristocracy : he knew about the temple text, but he also provided a retelling of this text with all kinds of modifications and interpretations, to some extent comparable to TgJon to the Prophets.58

57 It may well be that this copying policy was due to a particular group of people in Palestine that came to power around 50 BCE, the Pharisees (see Ant. 13.408 – 409). Tov speaks of “a central stream in Judaism” (Textual Criticism, 194), but without specification. 58 I therefore am not convinced that “even Josephus can be used to prove the plurality of texts” (Garc†a-Mart†nez, “Rethinking the Bible,” 28; see also Lange, “Nobody dared,” 126). On correspondences between Josephus’ works and TgJon to the Prophets, see A. van der Kooij, “Josephus, Onkelos and Jonathan. On the Agreements between Josephus’ Works and Targumic Sources,” in G. Khan and D. Lipton (eds.), Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 253 – 267.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Elvira Mart†n-Contreras ILC (CSIC), Spain

Rabbinic Ways of Preservation and Transmission of the Biblical Text in the Light of Masoretic Sources1

Introduction The history of the transmission of the biblical text has yet to be written. The reason is primarily because of the scarcity of textual evidence in Hebrew dating from ancient times. Without a textual basis, the process of explaining the development of the biblical text (including its standardization and transmission) has been, for the most part, explained by way of theories. Thus, until the middle of the twentieth century, the field of textual criticism could only rely on the evidence coming from material written in other languages such as the Septuagint, and subsequent documents written in Hebrew such as the Masoretic Text and the Samaritan Pentateuch. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls caused a radical change in what was known of the origins of the Hebrew biblical text and in our subsequent understanding of it, and as a result, the history of its transmission has had to be rewritten. However, this work focused primarily upon the period in which these newly-discovered scrolls were dated (from the first century BCE to the first century CE), effectively leaving the subsequent period of time unstudied, and explained only by means of hypotheses developed with the Dead Sea scrolls as their basis.2 The results of the study of these scrolls have contributed to the generally accepted theory amongst scholars that the Hebrew Bible, from its initial phases of composition to its final textual form is the product of a definitive and canonical edition. This edition was produced between the end of the first century CE and the beginning of the second century CE, by a group of men who were known as sopherim in later rabbinical literature. 1 This work is part of a wider research project “The Role of Rabbinic Literature in the Textual Transmission of the Hebrew Bible” (Ref: HUM2007 – 60109) within the R& D Programme of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICCIN). 2 Perhaps it is time to question the ‘revolutionary’ impact of the scrolls on the understanding of transmission process of the biblical text, see S. Talmon, “Introduction,” in id., Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible. Collected Studies (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 1:16 – 17.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

80

Elvira Martín-Contreras

The period that followed is thought to have been a period of unalterable transmission of the text, in which the Rabbis are considered to be the successors of the sopherim. They in turn are considered to be the forerunners of the Masoretes. However, this view of history presents difficulties, which have been identified by some researchers in the field of textual criticism. For instance, according to Harry M. Orlinsky,3 Bertil Albrektson,4 and more recently to John Van Seters5 a standardised text never existed; nor did anybody carry out a deliberate process of standardisation or stabilisation that would imply some textual activity in conformance with contemporary critical principles. There is simply not sufficient evidence to support such a process. Likewise, the continuity between the work of the sopherim and that of the Rabbis, defended by Saul Lieberman,6 has been refuted by Elias J. Bickerman,7 and the assumption that the sopherim were the forerunners of the Masoretes, defended by Robert Gordis,8 was already rejected by Christian D. Ginsburg,9 due to the completely different roles carried out by the two groups. Furthermore, the history of the text is normally divided into four phases:10 1) the period of the Urtext; 2) the period of the received texts, characterized by the fluidity found in the Qumran scrolls; 3) the period of the Received Text, representing the text that had already been stabilized; and 4) the period of the Masoretic Text, which is the composite of the biblical text and its Masorah. Also, the chronological division of the biblical text has been established based upon the working hypotheses set forth from the period that has been studied most (the period of the Dead Sea scrolls, which corresponds to Phase 2 of the 3 H. M. Orlinsky, “Prolegomenon. The Masoretic Text: A Critical Evaluation,” in C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1966), i – xlv, esp. xviii. 4 B. Albrektson, “Reflections on the Emergence of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible,” in J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977 (VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 49 – 65. 5 J. Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006). 6 S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: Philipp Feldheim, 1950). 7 E. J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988). 8 R. Gordis, The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere (Philadelphia, 1937; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1971), XI – LIII. 9 C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1966), 421. 10 S. Talmon, “The Old Testament Text,” in R. P. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Bible (3 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 1:164 – 170 (repr. in F. Cross and S. Talmon [eds.], Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text [Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1975], 1 – 41); M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, The Book of Isaiah. Sample Edition with Introduction (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1965), 12 – 18; it can also be divided into three phases according to E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2d ed. rev.; Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress Press/Royal Van Gorcum, 2001), 29 – 36.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Rabbinic Ways of Preservation and Transmission

81

abovementioned division), more than by the actual textual witnesses or by the study of other periods. This division does not take into account one of the problems that directly affects what has been established as Phase 4: the problem is that the origin and evolvement of the Masorah cannot be precisely established. The oldest Masoretic texts that are known to exist – the Tiberian biblical codices – date to the ninth and tenth centuries, and the earliest date that can be attributed to the appearance of the Masoretes is around the sixth and seventh centuries. Furthermore, the fragmentation that characterizes biblical studies has contributed in a large part to the lack of knowledge regarding this later period of textual transmission. For the most part, the study of the history of the biblical text that has been carried out in the field of textual criticism has focused mainly on Phase 2 of this division. To date, the fields of study that are directly related to other periods of biblical textual history – rabbinical and Masoretic studies – have usually been excluded in the study of the history of the text. This lack of interrelation has caused: 1) New discoveries and conclusions in those fields that cast doubt upon certain aspects of the hypotheses that attempts to explain the history of the text have not been taken into consideration. Thus, a study of the tiqqune sopherim carried out by Carmel McCarthy11 demonstrates, by way of an exhaustive study of every one of the emendations, that in the majority of instances these are not true corrections to the text, nor are they even euphemisms; the work of Giuseppe Veltri12 concerning the corrections made for King Ptolemy maintains that these were an exegetical resource unique to the Rabbis and used to resolve difficult passages; the recent dating of the texts upon which the theories of the sopherim are based, carried out in the field of textual criticism of rabbinical literature; the plural nature of the Masorah, not only in presenting a tendency to preserve the minority renderings and thus avoiding the standardization of the text, but also because, as more Masoretic texts are published, it is confirmed that there does not exist only one Masorah,13 but many. In addition to the differences between one Masorah and another, differences also exist between a Masorah and the text it accompanies,14 etc. 11 C. McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981). 12 G. Veltri, Eine Tora für den König Talmai. Untersuchungen zum Übersetzungsverständnis in der jüdisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen Literatur (TSAJ 41; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). 13 “There was never a process of standardization of the massora as there had been earlier of the consonantal text. There are no two massorae that are the same,” see J. A. Sanders, “Text and Canon: Concepts and Method,” JBL 98 (1979), 5 – 29, esp. 16. 14 A. Dotan, “Masorah,” EncJud (2d ed.; 2007), 13:603 – 656, esp. 620; A. Rubinstein, “Singu-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

82

Elvira Martín-Contreras

2) The use of rabbinical and Masoretic texts in the work of textual criticism has been infrequent and arbitrary. - The value of rabbinical literature in the reconstruction of the history of the biblical text has almost been denied by textual critics, with the exception of the texts mentioned and the variants selected as authentic in that literature.15 - The use of the Masorah in the history of the transmission of the biblical text has almost been limited to the reproduction of the Masorah that accompanies a specific biblical codex when a critical edition of that codex is carried out. To date, we only have available to us the complete edition of the Masorah Parva (MP) and the Masorah Magna (MM) that accompany the Cairo Codex of the Prophets (C).16 Despite the fact that textual works already published have demonstrated the benefits to be gained by their use when establishing the correct interpretation of the text,17 such works have been generally dismissed. All of these problems demonstrate that our understanding of the history of the Hebrew biblical text is still quite deficient. There remain questions that have yet to be answered, and at the same time, new questions continue to arise. If the biblical text was not standardized by way of an editorial process carried out by the sopherim, what took place from the time of the Dead Sea scrolls until the appearance of the first Masoretic codices? What was the level of standardization of the biblical text? How can the diversity of the traditional text contained in the Masorah be explained and combined with the idea of a text that was established and standardized several centuries earlier? How was the corpus of notes that constitutes the Masorah formed? And, if the Rabbis were not the successors of the sopherim, what was their role and what was their literary production in this larities in the Massorah of the Leningrad Codex (B19a),” JJS 12 (1961), 123 – 131; id. “The Problem of Errors in the Massorah Parva of Codex B19a,” Sefarad 25 (1965), 16 – 26. 15 Goshen-Gottstein, The Book of Isaiah, 7; Y. Maori, “The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Rabbinic Writings in the Light of the Qumran Evidence,” in D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls Forty Years of Research (Leiden/Jerusalem: Brill/Magnes Press/Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1992), 283 – 289. For a collection of the differences on biblical quotations in rabbinic literature, see V. Aptowitzer, Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur (vols. 1 – 4; Wien: Alfred Holder, 1908; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1970). 16 Since there does not exist a complete edition of the Masorah of the Aleppo (A) and Leningrad (L) manuscripts (the Masorah published in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia does not reproduce the L manuscript in its most exact form due to the editorial criterion made by G. E. Weil, see Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ediderunt K. Elliger et W. Rudolph, Textum Masoreticum curavit H. P. Rüger, Masoram elaboravit G. E. Weil. 5th. ed. rev. by A. Schenker (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997). XV – XVI. 17 D. Barth¦lemy, Êz¦chiel, Daniel et les 12 ProphÀtes (vol. 3 of Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament; OBO 50:3; Fribourg/Göttingen: Êditions Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), xlix–xcvii.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Rabbinic Ways of Preservation and Transmission

83

process? Did their role influence the sacralization of the text and its hermeneutic use in its transmission? Taking into account: a) the new questions raised; b) the lack of studies concerning the period after the second century CE; c) the inconsistencies and refutations of the theories used to explain the history of the biblical text; d) the lack of a relationship between the different fields involved in its study ; and e) the scarce usage of the rabbinical and Masoretic literature in the reconstruction of the transmission of the text; I decided to start an investigation of the littleresearched period of the history of the biblical text – from the period of the Received Text until the period of the Masoretic Text – to set forth and attempt to understand what occurred with the biblical text in those centuries. Thus, my current research project “The Role of Rabbinic Literature in the Textual Transmission of the Hebrew Bible” attempts to clarify and understand the processes involved in that period of the history of the Hebrew biblical text and to address some of these new questions.

The Research Project The investigation is being carried out using an innovative approach that brings together two areas of study that have previously been studied separately, namely rabbinic studies and Masoretic studies. This new approach allows one to shed light one upon the other. It will be shown that by taking into consideration the Rabbinic material and the Masorah, the reconstruction of the history of the Hebrew biblical text will be facilitated.18 The materials that make up the Masorah have not yet been studied thoroughly and present certain problems. The Masorah is composed of a large quantity of data that was collected anonymously over a long period of time by many scholars, and it includes the work of different schools and individuals. It is difficult to ascertain the origin and evolution of the Masorah, as well as the identity of the persons who carried out the work of compiling the information contained in the Masoretic notes and who recorded it in writing.19 As Israel Yeivin indicates, “the development of these Masoretic notes is sketched on the

18 The validity and benefits of the combined use of these studies for the understanding and interpretation of the biblical text have been demonstrated in E. Mart†n-Contreras, “Masoretic and Rabbinic Lights on the word =58, Ruth 3:15: 58= or 495?,” VT 59 (2009), 257 – 265. 19 Dotan, “Masorah,” 648 – 649; L. Himmelfarb, “The Identity of the First Masoretes,” Sefarad 67 (2007), 37 – 50; I. Yeivin, “From the Teachings of the Massoretes” (Heb.), Textus 9 (1981), 1 – 27.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

84

Elvira Martín-Contreras

basis of vague hints and with much speculation.”20 The beginning of the Masorah is generally established to be around the sixth and seventh centuries,21 as is the formation of a specific body of men dedicated to working on the Masorah – the Masoretes. The inclusion of Masoretic notes written in the text is attributed to them, as well as the addition of vowels and cantillation marks. The abundant textual information contained in the Masoretic notes remains to a great extent unpublished, due to the difficulty that a study of this material entails.22 The specificity of its structure (both micrography and ornamental) and the language it employs (extremely concise, and containing a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic with numerous abbreviations) requires specialized academic training. This is the reason why there are relatively few specialized researchers in this field, and, due to its complex nature, it is the reason why work in this field is being carried out at a very slow pace. Furthermore, the plural nature of the Masorah makes it necessary to search for all the information about a specific word in different sources in order to achieve a semblance of uniformity.23 On the other hand, there exists in the rabbinical literature a type of textual information that has, for the most part, been ignored. In addition to the abovementioned well-known corrections and omissions of the sopherim – the irregularities in the Writing24 and those irregularities mentioned in the Oral Tradition –25 other details of the textual tradition are pointed out and used by the Rabbis in its interpretation, such as full and defective writing, the number of letters in a word, the unique form or shape of a letter, etc. These details are often

20 See I. Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah (trans. E. J. Revell; Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature/Scholars Press, 1980), 131. 21 On the difficulty of establishing the beginning of the Masorah in that period, see P. H. Kelley, D. S. Mynatt and T. G. Crawford, The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Introduction and Annotated Glossary (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998), 14 – 16. 22 A. Dotan, “Prolegomenon” to C. D. Ginsburg, The Massorah Compiled from Manuscripts Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged (4 vols.; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1975), 1:XIX, XXIV. 23 For some comparative studies see E. Fern‚ndez-Tejero and Ma. T. Ortega-Monasterio, “Las masoras de A, C y L en el libro de Nahum,” Sefarad 41 (1981), 1 – 43; id. “Las masoras de A, C y L en el libro de Joel,” in E. Fern‚ndez-Tejero (ed.), Estudios Masor¦ticos (V Congreso de la IOMS). Dedicados a Harry M. Orlinsky (Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 33; Madrid: CSIC, 1983), 205 – 242; C. McCarthy, “A Comparative Study of the Masorah Magna and Parva of the Book of Deuteronomy as Attested in the Leningrad and Madrid M1 Manuscripts,” in Y. A. P. Goldman, A. van der Kooij and R. D. Weis (eds.), Sofer Mahir : Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 177 – 191; Ma. T. Ortega-Monasterio, “Some Masoretic Notes of Mss. L and Or 4445 Compared with the Spanish Tradition,” Sefarad 57 (1997), 127 – 133. 24 Inverted nun, large and small letters, suspended letters, and the puncta extraordinaria. 25 Words that are read but are not written in the text, words that are written in the text but which are not read.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Rabbinic Ways of Preservation and Transmission

85

stated in a language similar to the Masorah, and on many occasions are set forth in Masoretic lists. With the exception of the work of the sopherim, this material has not been studied very much. The few existing studies are out-of-date and are limited to quoting isolated examples from diverse sources.26 The field of rabbinic studies has mentioned the references attributed to the sopherim but has studied only some of them. The field of Masoretic studies has acknowledged that there are notes of the same kind as those of the later Masorah found in some rabbinical works27 and some authors have seen the basis of the Masorah in this kind of ‘Masoretic notes’.28 No recent attempt has been made to investigate the link systematically and with modern methods.29 In these commentaries, the textual detail that is pointed out is usually accompanied by an exegetical interpretation. This involves a difference concerning the manner in which the textual information is contained in the Masorah, which, together with the lack of studies regarding the part of interpretation and its relationship with the textual detail, has resulted, in my opinion, in an erroneous understanding of the commentaries.30 The results of my previous studies concerning some rabbinical works31 have revealed the need to include this literature in the reconstruction of the history of the biblical text, in that they serve to: a) Identify a large number of textual notes found in some of the rabbinical works that have not been pointed out previously. The exhaustive and detailed search of each Midrash has allowed for the identification of one hundred and fifty six textual notes in total (see Appendix I). The treatment given to these textual features and the structure of the notes in each Midrash and among the

˘

˘

26 L. Blau, Masoretische Untersuchungen (Budapest: K. J. Trübner, 1891), 54 – 61; J. Bonsirven, Ex¦gÀse rabbinique et ex¦gÀse paulinienne (Paris: Beauchesne, 1939); I. Harris, “The Rise and Development of the Massorah. I,” JQR 1 (1898 – 1899), 128 – 142; JQR 2, 223 – 257; S. Rosenfeldt, Sefer Mishpachat Soferim (Heb.; Vilna, 1883), 9 – 15. 27 Kelley, Mynatt and Crawford, The Masorah, 14; Yeivin, Introduction, 132 – 135. 28 Harris, “The Rise. I,” 130 – 131, 142; J. M. Mulder, “The Transmission of the Biblical Text,” in id. (ed.), Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible (Assen/ Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress Press, 1988), 87 – 135, esp. 93 – 94. 29 S. L. Seeligmann, “Studies in the History of the Biblical Text,” Textus 20 (2000), 1 – 30, esp. 3, n. 8. 30 Some of these commentaries are given as examples of disagreement between the rabbinic literature and the Masorah (see Kelley, Mynatt and Crawford, The Masorah, 14; Yeivin, Introduction, 135 – 136), however it is possible to find Masoretic confirmation for them. 31 E. Mart†n-Contreras, “Terminolog†a masor¦tica en la ex¦gesis de G¦nesis Rabb– (secciones Be˘resˇıt’ y ‘Noah. ’),” Sefarad 59 (1999), 343 – 352; id., La interpretaciûn de la Creaciûn. T¦cnicas exeg¦ticas en el midr‚s “G¦nesis Rabbah” (Biblioteca Midr‚sica 24; Estella, Navarra: Verbo Divino, 2002), 147 – 205; id., “Noticias masor¦ticas en el midr‚s Lamentaciones Rabb–,” Sefarad 62 (2002), 125 – 141; id., “Noticias masor¦ticas en los midrasˇ„m hal‚kicos m‚s antiguos y su comparaciûn con los midrasˇ„m exeg¦ticos,” Sefarad 63:1 (2003), 119 – 139.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

86

Elvira Martín-Contreras

midrashim are very homogeneous. For instance, when the textual notes deal with numerical information (‘counting’), the occurrences of one single word or combination of words in the Bible or in one book are pointed out explicitly ; after the numerical quotation, the localization is given listing the biblical verses. In the majority of the textual notes an explanation of the textual detail is given. Those cases that have no explanation are much more similar to the characteristic Masoretic notes. b) Show the great variety of textual phenomena pointed out in them (see Appendix II); c) Verify a greater presence of these notes among the rabbinical works of a non-legal nature than among the works of a legal nature. This fact confirms the inclusion of these types of works in the analysis, despite the secondary importance that they are usually given in the area of rabbinical studies; d) Confirm the existence of a close relationship between rabbinical literature and the Masorah. Apart from some textual notes, all the textual information recorded in them is endorsed by the Masorah.

Methodology As mentioned above, the investigation is being carried out based upon the textual sources from the abovementioned periods. The corpus of rabbinical literature is comprised of the rabbinical works dated prior to the appearance of the Masorah. Due to the problems in dating that many of these texts present, at the outset of this project only those texts that were clearly chronologically identifiable were chosen. Thus, for the halakhic midrashim, the Sifre to Deuteronomy (ca. third-fourth century CE) was chosen, and for the haggadic midrashim, the Leviticus Rabbah (fifth-sixth century), the Pesiqta de Rab Kahana (sixth century) and the Ruth Rabbah32 (ca. sixth century) were chosen for the current phase of the project. The Masoretic corpus is made up of: a) the masorot of the principal Tiberian biblical manuscripts (C, A and L) and of the M1 manuscript of the Complutense University of Madrid, as an example of the Spanish tradition; and b) the standard Masoretic lists and treatises.33 32 E. Mart†n-Contreras, “Text Preserving Observations in the midrash Ruth Rabbah,” JJS 62:2 (2011), 311 – 323. 33 C. D. Ginsburg, The Massorah Compiled from Manuscripts (4 vols.; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1975); S. Frensdorff, Das Buch Ochlah W’ochlah (Hannover : Hahn, 1864; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1972); id., Die Massora Magna I: Massoretisches Wörterbuch oder die Massora in alphabetischer Ordnung (Hannover/Leipzig: Verlagsbuchhandlung von Cohen & Risch, 1876; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1968); F. D†az-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Rabbinic Ways of Preservation and Transmission

87

Since no complete editions of the Masorah of A and L exist, the facsimile editions of these manuscripts have been consulted. The edition of the Masorah of M1 is also incomplete, and consequently, the photographs and digitalization of the manuscript that belongs to the ‘Biblical Textual Criticism and Philology’ group of the Center of Humanistic and Social Sciences (CSIC) have been consulted. The use of this text implies a work in itself, in addition to that of the project, since the same activities that are employed for the editing of this type of material are carried out when consulting these texts, namely, working on the original manuscript, transliterating, interpretating and studying the notes, and finally, making a comparative evaluation of the combined material. A novel methodology has been developed for the analysis of the sources. It consists in three main steps: 1) A systematic analysis of the works selected This involves an exhaustive and detailed search of each work of the midrashic units containing textual notes that are presented in a form of language similar to the Masorah or in some technical formula. We call them Text-Preserving Observations (TPOs). The analysis of these works allows for the identification of all the textual notes contained in them, and will consequently offer a complete picture of this period. 2) The study of the midrashic units The two parts of which these units usually consist – textual detail in the style of the Masorah and the interpretation of this detail –34 are studied separately, firstly as the basis for the textual study, secondly for exegetical study. Thus, the study of the units is carried out using the following guidelines: 2.1. The study of the TPOs The textual information contained in each unit is compared with the information contained in the masorot of C, A, L and M1 and the most relevant Masoretic lists and treatises in order to establish which of these textual commentaries are contained in the Masorah. A study is thus initiated of the note’s evolutionary process beginning with the Esteban, Sefer Oklah we Oklah: colecciûn de listas de palabras destinadas a conservar la integridad del texto hebreo de la Biblia entre los jud†os de la Edad Media (Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 4; Madrid: CSIC, 1975); A. Dotan, The Diqduq¦ hatte amim of Aaron ben Moshe ben Asher, With a Critical Edition of the Original Text form New Manuscripts (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1967); B. Ognibeni, La seconda parte del Sefer Oklah we Oklah: edizione del Ms. Halle, Universitätsbibliothek (Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 57; Madrid/Fribourg: CSIC/Universit¦ De Fribourg, 1995); G. E. Weil, Massorah Gedolah Iuxta codicem Leningradensem B19a (Rome: Pontificial Biblical Institut, 1971); Biblia Rabbinica: A Reprint of the 1525 Venice Edition. Edited by J. ben Hayyim Ibn Adoniya. Introduction by M. H. Goshen-Gottstein (Jerusalem: Makor, 1972). 34 See E. Mart†n-Contreras, “Comments on Textual Details: Relationships between Masorah and Midrash,” JJS 54 (2003), 62 – 70, esp. 70.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

88

Elvira Martín-Contreras

rabbinic literature, where it is accompanied with interpretations, up to the time of the Masorah, where such information is very brief and does not contain any interpretation. To that end, an examination is made to see if information is contained in the parallel passages of other works of rabbinic literature, and if so, how it is presented (if there is a change in the terminology, if the note is longer or shorter, etc.). 2.2. The study of the rabbinic explanations The explanations of each textual detail are studied individually in various steps. The first step is to establish the type of exegesis that is used in each instance (identifying what type of hermeneutic mechanism or resource employed and explaining it). The second step of the interpretation process consists of analyzing the treatment given to those types of notes in the entirety of each work (to determine if there is a unified form and if the same phenomenon is attained with similar terminology). 3) The study of the transmission process After completing steps 1 and 2, a comparison will be made to find out how a specific note appears in the rabbinical literature and in the Masorah, with special attention paid to the terminology, on one hand, and how it appears in the different midrashim, on the other hand. The results of this comparison will allow for a reconstruction of its evolution and transmission.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

89

Rabbinic Ways of Preservation and Transmission

Appendix I

Inverted Nun

Genesis Lamentations Mekhilta R. Sifra Sifre Rabbah Rabbah Yismael Numbers 1 – – – 1

Puncta extraordinaria Suspended letter

5 –

– –

– –

– –

list (10) –

Large letter Small letter

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

Tiqqune sopherim Changes for King Ptolemy

1 5

– –

list (11) list (13)

– –

list (8) –

Qere-ketiv Qere we-la ketiv

1 –

– –

– –

– –

– –

Difference between ‘written’ and ‘read’ Plene and defective spelling

7

7

–

–

–

28

4

2

–

–

Odd spelling Counting

27

6 2

– –

– –

– –

Unique usage Sebirim

7 –

– 1

2 –

– –

– –

10 qal wa-homerim in the ˙ Bible Expressions of the Bible, which can be read in another way

list (9)

–

–

–

–

list (5)

–

list (5)

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

–

–

90

Elvira Martín-Contreras

Appendix II Inverted Nun

9=@F 79KD 8üB@B9 8@FB@B 9=@F / …@F 79KD

Puncta extraordinaria Suspended letter Small letter

9D=4 ’@ 7KD 9=4 79KD

5=N?

8=9@N … 8==LK5 N=@ L=F: … 8=N99?

Tiqqune sopherim

59N?8 8D=?M 4@4

Changes for King Ptolemy

A=LH9E C9K=N 4=8/8:

95N?M A=L578 CB 7;4 /ý@B8 =B@N@ 9D=MM A=L578 CB 7;4 ý@B8 =B@N@

Qere-ketiv Difference between ‘written’ and ‘read’ Plene and defective spelling

Odd spelling

=LK … ’N? … 5=N?

’N? C=4 … … @?/LE; … =N? … 9LB4DM 4D==DN / /’9 LE; … @? CB L5 C=LE; 9LD4DM C=LN

5=N? /’9 4@B … /4@B … 4LKB5 ’N?M … @? A@M

5=N?

Counting

Unique usage Sebirim 10 qal wa-homerim ˙ in the Bible Expressions of the Bible, which can be read in another way

/A=BFH … ’N? A=BFH …

N9B9KB …5 8:8 C9M@? /LB4D

/… C4?9 … A9KB @?5 …’N? =?4@B LHE @?5 …’N? C?9

C4?9 … =N? A@9?5 …

’5 … A=45D5 8L9N5 A=BFH /9D=JB A=59N?59 7;4 K9EH5

LB9@ 4=LK ý=LJ 8=8 4@ … NLB4 N49 … 4@4 =@9KB 8LMFB 7;4 8L9N5 A=L9B48 A=LB9; /A=L57 8MB; A8@ C=4M 8L9N5 N94LKB FL?8

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Günter Stemberger

Preliminary Notes on Grammar and Orthography in Halakhic Midrashim: Late Additions?

Every effort to not only unify the text of the Hebrew Bible, but even more so to transmit it in exactly the defined form, certainly implies rules of orthography and at least a minimal understanding of the grammar of Biblical Hebrew. If the labor of the Masoretes is supposed to reach back far beyond the known Masoretes of the eighth or ninth century, we should expect to find traces of earlier occupation with grammar and orthography.1 But – as has been already noted long ago – traces of such interests are rather rare in rabbinic literature and are normally considered to be late. Before entering into a discussion of the few examples from the halakhic midrashim, I would like to point to a text from the Babylonian Talmud. In b. Qid 2a–b, we encounter a rather unusual discussion even for the Babylonian Talmud: Why does the Mishnah first use the phrase ‘a woman is acquired’ (N=DK=D 8M48), but then continues: ‘The man consecrates’ (M7KB M=48)? The answer is that the Mishnah first wants to introduce the matter of acquiring a woman through money ; a monetary token serves to effect betrothal. But then why not say : ‘The man acquires’ (8D9K M=48)? The answer is: “At first, the tanna made use of the language of the Torah, and then, the language of the Rabbis” (CD5L7 4DM=@ =DN G9E5@9 ,4N==L947 4DM=@ =DN 4LK=FB). This already indicates a certain awareness regarding language and style. A little later, the discussion continues: Why does the Mishnah (m. Qid 1:1) “use the feminine form of the numeral ‘three’ (M@M): Awoman is acquired in three ways. It should use the masculine form!” (8M@M =DN=@ .A=?L7 M@M5 N=DK=D 8M=48). The redactor answers that the noun ‘way’ is feminine (498 85KD C9M@ ýL7), as is demonstrated with a quotation from Exod 18:20 : “And make known to them the way they are to go” (85 9 ?@= ýL78 N4 A8@ NF7989). However, an immediate 1 For an analysis of Masoretic aspects in the halakhic midrashim that goes beyond our narrowly defined objective, see E. Mart†n-Contreras, “Noticias masor¦ticas en los midrasˇ„m hal‚kicos m‚s antiguos y su comparaciûn con los midrasˇ„m exeg¦ticos,” Sefarad 63:1 (2003), 119 – 139; id., “El principio hermen¦utico ’en ketıb ka’n ’el·la’ en la Mekilta de Rabbi Yisˇmael,” Sefarad 65:1 (2005), 85 – 102. ˘

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

92

Günter Stemberger

objection follows from m. Zab 2 :2 : “In seven ways do they examine the zab” (5 :8 N4 C=K795 A=?L7 8F5M5); Should it not be F5M, the feminine form?! The text goes on to explain that these different uses of ýL7, once as a feminine word and then as a masculine one, are not contradictory : When it refers to the Torah which is feminine, ýL7 is used as a feminine word. In Deut 28:7, the Torah correctly uses the masculine form: “They shall come out against you one way, and flee before you seven ways” (ý=DH@ 9E9D= A=?L7 8F5M59 ý=@4 94J= 7;4 ýL75). The reason is that here ‘way’ refers to war which is an occupation of men, not of women. Therefore it is taken as masculine. This kind of discussion continues for some time, but we have already seen enough of the focus the passage takes in questions of grammar. Sherira Gaon already called this passage a saboraic addition to the Babylonian Talmud, a late text in the Talmud. Yaakov Elman comments on the passage: The Qiddushin sugya relates to the grammatical issue of the gender of the word derekh, an issue that seems to have no halakhic or aggadic implications… Concern with such an issue is not only unusual; but all but unknown in rabbinic literature… While it is clear that the rabbis were not devoid of a grammatical understanding of certain aspects of Biblical and Middle Hebrew, this information was deployed as needed for exegetical purposes, and not as an end in itself… even much later, in the tenth century, the interest in grammar, like that in Bible per se, was a belated response to the Karaite challenge, and thus came from the outside. This passage may date from a time when the challenge had to be acknowledged, but the author/compiler of this sugya was not yet willing to abandon midrashic ways of explaining such matters.2

Elman connects the date of such additions to the Babylonian Talmud with the development in the interest in Arabic grammar among the Muslim ruling class. Sibawayhi (died in 796) wrote the first comprehensive grammatical work, the Kitab of Sibawayhi. Elman thinks that one can hardly assume that Jewish interest in grammar is much earlier than the Kitab of Sibawayhi. But since cultural influences take time to develop: we should not hasten to date these matters too early. After all, R. Saadiah Gaon’s use of Arabic models of Quranic exegesis for his biblical commentary was a pioneering effort for rabbanites as late as the tenth century.3

Elman’s observations concur with what Wilhelm Bacher wrote more than a century ago:

2 Y. Elman, “The World of the ‘Sabboraim.’ Cultural Aspects of Post-Redactional Additions to the Bavli,” in J. L. Rubenstein (ed.), Creation and Composition. The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada (TSAJ 114; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 383 – 415, esp. 384 – 386. 3 Elman, “The World of the ‘Sabboraim,’” 387.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Preliminary Notes on Grammar and Orthography

93

Nur eine geringe Anzahl von Bezeichnungen sprachlicher Kategorien ganz allgemeiner Natur findet sich in der Traditionslitteratur, die nachher zu Bestandtheilen der grammatischen Terminologie wurden. Es sind die Namen für Einzahl und Mehrzahl, für Masculinum und Femininum, für Perfectum und Futurum.

But apart from the Mekhilta, his only examples are passages from the Babylonian Talmud (sometimes designated as baraita; but this cannot be taken as clear evidence for dating a passage to the Tannaite period).4

1.

Questions of Grammar

After these prolegomena, let us proceed to the passages of the Mekhilta that interest us in this context. The first example comes from Mek Shirata 1 on Exod 15:1: “Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the Lord” (=D59 8MB L=M= :4 N4:8 8L=M8 N4 @4LM=). The Mekhilta starts with a discussion of the word :4: Sometimes it refers to times past, and in some cases it refers to the future – an extremely rare lexicographical discussion in early texts. The Midrash continues with an enumeration of ten songs recorded in the Bible. The first nine songs are called 8L=M, the last one, for the future, is L=M: The tenth, said in the age to come: “Sing to the Lord a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth” (Isa 42 :10) ; “Sing to the Lord a new song and his praise in the assembly of the saints” (Ps 149 :1). All the songs in times past were represented in the feminine form (85KD C9M@5 N9=9LK 9L5FM N9L=M8 @?M). Just as a woman gives birth, so the acts of salvation in times past were followed by subjugation. But as to the salvation that is destined to come in the future, it is represented in the masculine form (L?: C9M@ 8=9LK 87=NF8 8F9MN8 @54). For it is said: “Ask now and see whether a man goes into labor with a child” (Jer 30:6). Just as a male does not give birth, so as to the salvation that is destined to come in the future, after it there will be no further subjugation: “O Israel, saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation” (Isa 45:17).5

All the songs in times past were represented in the feminine form. Just as a woman gives birth several times, so the acts of salvation in times past were followed by subjugation. But after the final salvation there will be no further 4 W. Bacher, “Die Anfänge der hebräischen Grammatik,” ZDMG 49 (1895), 1 – 62; 335 – 392; esp. 3 – 4. Bacher thinks that he has probably indicated all rabbinic passages contributing to the terminology of the later Hebrew grammar (6). 5 Mek Shirata 1 (Horovitz-Rabin 118). There are no variants in the manuscripts apart from the fact that the Oxford Ms does not explicitly call the last song the ‘tenth (song)’. All translations of the Mekhilta in this essay are taken from J. Neusner, The Components of the Rabbinic Documents. From the Whole to the Parts VIII: Mekhilta Attributed to Rabbi Ismael (3 vols.; Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997). It is slightly adapted wherever the manuscripts diverge from the edition translated by Neusner.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

94

Günter Stemberger

subjugation. Therefore the song celebrating it is represented in the masculine form. This is, of course, a homiletic explanation, but based on the observation that the word ‘song’ occurs in the Bible once in the masculine form, and in other cases in the feminine form, therefore showing grammatical awareness. There is no other place in Mishnah, Tosefta or within the Mekhilta where the grammatical gender of a word is discussed. The only parallel within the halakhic midrashim is Sifra Behuqqotai Pereq 11:1 on Lev 27:21: “But when the field is ˙ released in the jubilee: this tells you that ‘field’ is used in the masculine form” (L?: C9M@ =9LK 87M8M 7=6B .@59=5 9N4J5 87M8 8=89). I quoted the text according to Vatican 31, the only manuscript we have for this part of Sifra Behuqqotai (mainly its first half on Lev 27) and in many aspects is very ˙ different from the rest of Sifra (7=6B, as used here alone in this chapter, is typical of the “School of Yishmael,” not that of Aqiba to which the main body of the Midrash belongs). The statement is absolutely out of context; it is perhaps not by chance that later texts (as the edition of Isaac H. Weiss) added: “That ‘field’ is used in the masculine form in the holy language” (M79K C9M@5 L?: C9M@ =9LK 87M8M 7=6B). Leshon qodesh is an extremely rare expression in early texts. In the Mekhilta, the difference in grammatical gender is used for homiletical purposes and thus very close to what we saw in b. Qid 2b. The isolation of such a discussion in a rabbinic document normally dated to the decades directly after the redaction of the Mishnah needs some explanation.6 A second grammatical statement comes in Mek Pisha 14 (Horovitz-Rabin ˙ 48) on Exod 12 :37: “The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth” (8N?E EEBFLB @4LM= =D5 9FE=9). The Rabbis in the text first discuss the meaning of sukkotah. Does it really mean ‘huts’ or is it not the name of a place? R. Aqiba offers a metaphorical interpretation of the word: It stands for the clouds of God’s glory, based on Isa 4:5 – 6 (and other passages): “Then the Lord will create over the whole site of Mount Zion and over its places of assembly a cloud… It will serve as a pavilion, a shade by day from the heat (5L;B AB9= @J@ 8=8N 8?E9), and a refuge and a shelter from the storm and rain.” But then R. Nehemiah adds: Sukkotah: There should have been a lamed at the beginning of the word; thus add to it a he at its end (9H9E5 48 9@ CNN 9N@=;N5 7B@ ýLJM =H@ 8N9?9E).

I gave the reading of Ms Oxford. The reading of the editio princeps is rather close: 9H9E5 48 9@ CN9D9 9N@;NB 7B@ ý=LJM =H@ 8N9?9E. The copyist of Ms Munich seems not to have understood his Vorlage and reads: 9N@;NB LB9@ ý=LJM =H@ ’N9?9E 9H9E5 9@ CN9D9 (LB9@ instead of 7B@; omission of 48). The isolation of the phrase 6 SongR 1:5,3 has a close parallel to our text. Comments on masculine or feminine forms become more common in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Zeb 43b; b. Men 93a; b. AZ 24b; b. Arak 2b; b. Tem 2b; 17b) and in later midrashim (e. g., QohR 7:27 and PesRab 14).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Preliminary Notes on Grammar and Orthography

95

within early rabbinic texts, the lack of context within the Midrash, and above all, the differences between the three versions of the statement make it highly probable that this passage is a later gloss. As a matter of fact, we find a very similar statement in GenR 68:8 (TheodorAlbeck 777, here following Ms Vatican 30): “(Jacob left Beer-sheba and went) towards Haran” (8DL; Gen 28:10). It was taught in the name of R. Nehemiah: In any word in which there should be a lamed at its beginning, a he was added at its end (9H9E5 48 9@ CN=D 9N@=;NB 7B@ ýLJ=M L57 @?) –Sodomah, Seirah, Mizraimah, Haranah (Gen 19:1; 33:16; 12:10; 28:10). It was objected: And lo, it is written: “The wicked shall depart to Sheol” (Ps 9:18 8@94M@ with a lamed at the beginning of the word and with a he at the end). R. Abba bar Zabdah said: The sense is that it is to the lowest compartment of hell.

GenR 86:2 (Theodor-Albeck 1053) offers an almost literal parallel; only the sequence of the textual examples differs. The edition Theodor-Albeck places the whole passage within brackets and offers many variant readings, typical for later additions. The phrase in the name of R. Nehemiah is missing in the best textual witness, Ms Vatican 30, but has been added by a later hand in the margin. There are many late insertions in the latter part of the Midrash; we may assume that the sentence has been copied in this place from 68:8. A parallel is also found in b. Yeb 13b regarding Deut 25:5: “The wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family (8J9;8) to a stranger” (I omit the context regarding the possible difference between 8J9; and I9;@). I quote Ms Munich 95: And the House of Hillel (says): Since it is written ‘outside’ (8J9;), it is as though it were written, ‘to an outsider’ (I9;@). For it has been taught: R. Nehemiah says, Any word that would require a lamed at the beginning (8N@=;N5 7’’B@ 8?=LJM 85=N @?), Scripture has put a he at its end (8H9E5 =’’8 59N?8 85 @=ü8). And those from the house of R. Ismael teach: As for example Elimah, Mahanaimah, Mizraimah, Diblathaimah, Yerushalaimah, Midbarah (Exod 15:27; 2 Sam 17:24; Gen 12:10; Num 33:47; Ezek 8:3; 1 Chr 5:9: 8L57B 8B=@M9L= 8B=N@57 8B=LJB 8B=D;B 8B=@4).

All textual witnesses agree ; only Ms Vatican 114 offers a slightly different text : “Any word that requires a lamed at the beginning, add to it a he at its end” (8H9E5 ’8 8@ @ü8 ’@=;N5 7B@ ’=LJM 85=N @?; see also Ms Vatican 111 8H9E5 =’8 8@ @=ü8 8N@=;N5 7’B@ ?=LJM ’85=N @?). A last (and very late) midrashic parallel is encountered in MidrPss 9:18 (Buber 45a), again in the name of R. Nehemiah: “Every form which has no lamed at its beginning, (Scripture) added a he at its end” (8H9E5 ’8 CND 8M4L5 ’@ C=4M 85=N @?). The part regarding Ps 9:18 is expanded. The statement regarding the meaning of a final he replacing a lamed at the beginning of a word is thus constantly attributed to R. Nehemiah. The attribu-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

96

Günter Stemberger

tion would fit the normally accepted date of the Mekhilta. Only the absolute isolation of the grammatical observation in tannaitic literature and the slight variations of the text in the different textual witnesses make it doubtful that the parallels in Genesis Rabbah and the Babylonian Talmud are derived from the Mekhilta. A later gloss in the Mekhilta remains a possibility.

2.

Orthography and Spelling

Questions not only of grammar, but also considerations of orthography are extremely rare in early texts.7 An example worthy of consideration is Mek Wayassa 1 (Horovitz-Rabin 156 – 157) on Exod 15:25. I quote from Ms Munich (in Ms Oxford, a leaf containing this passage is missing): “And there he put them to the test (98E=D).” “And there he raised (4M=D) greatness upon him,” the words of R. Joshua. So it is said: “Evil-merodach raised (4MD) [King Jehoiachin of Judah from prison]” (2 Kgs 25:27). And it says: “Raise up (4MD) the heads of the Gershonites also” (Num 4:22). Said to him R. Eleazar the Modiite: But does not (the meaning) greatness depend on (a spelling with) sin, and here it is written with samekh (C’’=M5 4@4 8=9@N 8D=4 8@976 4@89 ý’’BE5 G’’@4 ’N? 4@ C4?9; editio princeps: 4@4 ’=N? 4@ C4?9 C=M5 @4 8=9@N 8D=4 8@976 4@89 ýBE5)! What then is the sense of “And there he put them to the test”? It is that there the Omnipresent put Israel to the test.

Here again the text of its two witnesses differs from each other, thus showing that the copyist did not feel at ease with it, perhaps again pointing to a gloss. My translation is based on editio princeps, taking G’’@4 in Ms Munich as a mistake for 4@4. One might of course, also take this reading as a garbled reference to the second difference in the spelling of these two words: it should be with alef, but here it is written with he. Normally the Rabbis do not care about the spelling of a word; they are used to draw analogies, using similarly sounding words although the spelling is very different. But here R. Eleazar of Modiin objects to an interpretation because of the spelling; in this particular case he does not equate a word written with samekh to one written with sin (something that caused no problem to Palestinian contemporaries, as may be seen in the mosaic of the synagogue of Sepphoris where in the scene depicting the institution of the sacrificial cult we read [Num

˘

7 Plene and defective spellings of personal names and their changes in the biblical text belong to another category. They are noted and given a homiletical explanation, as e. g. in Mek Amaleq 3 (Horovitz-Rabin 189 – 190), commenting on Exod 18:1 (the difference between Jeter and Jitro): Several persons behaved well; therefore a letter was added to their names; others behaved badly and therefore a letter was taken away from their name.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Preliminary Notes on Grammar and Orthography

97

28:4] 7;4 E5?8 N4, but a line below correctly =DM8 M5?8 N49.8 The fact that the exact Masoretic spelling is not the issue (at least for the copyist) may be seen in the plene spelling of 98E=D in the lemma. In other contexts, the absolute exact spelling is an issue – otherwise m. Yad 3:5 could not say that 85 letters (corresponding to the shortest pericope in the reading of the Torah, Num 10:35 – 36) is the minimum number of letters in a Torah text that can render the hands unclean. But this is obviously true only for liturgical texts, not for texts written for private use where plene writing is quite common (at least in manuscripts of rabbinic texts – we do not know how the Rabbis themselves would have written their biblical proof-texts). Another interesting case is Mek Shirata 8 (Horovitz-Rabin 142 – 143) on Exod 15:11: “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?” (898= A@45 8?B? =B). Here the discussion is based on the defective spelling of the word A=@4, thus the precise spelling of the Masoretic Text: Another comment on the verse, “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods (A=@=45)?” It is written A@45 (and thus could mean: ‘in strength’): Who is like you among the strong (’=B@=45), O Lord? Who is like you in wonders and acts of might that you did at the sea? So it is said: “Awesome deeds by the Red Sea” (Ps 106:22). “And he rebuked the Red Sea, and it became dry ; he led them through the deep as through a desert” (Ps 106:9). “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods (A=@45)?” Who is like you among the silent ones (’=B@=45), O Lord? Who sees like you the humiliation of your children and keeps silent (KN9M9)?… “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods (A=@=45)?” Who is like you among those (9@=45) who serve before you on high? So it is said: “For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord?” etc., “A god feared in the council of the holy ones” etc. “O Lord God of hosts, who is as mighty as you, O Lord?” etc. (Ps 89:7 – 9). “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods (A=@=45)?” Who is like you among those (9@=45) who call themselves gods… “Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods (A=@=45)?” Who is like you among those (9@=45) whom others call gods, but in whom there is no substance, of whom it is said: “They have mouths but cannot speak” (Ps 115:5).

The defective spelling of ba-’elim is taken as the starting point for a number of interpretations, but it must be stated that the explicit phrase ’N? “A@45” is to be found only in Ms Oxford; Ms Munich and the editio princeps omit it. Therefore, we have to reckon with the possibility that it is a later gloss. The first inter8 In the Mekhilta, too, the exchange of samekh for sin poses no problem, as we can see in Mek Beshallah 7 (Horovitz-Rabin 112): R. Aqiba, normally thought to insist on every small detail of ˙ text, explains the defective spelling in Song 1:9 “to my horse (=NEE@) in Pharaoh’s the biblical chariot” as referring to God’s pleasure: “Just as I rejoiced (=NMMM AM?) over the Egyptians in wiping them out, so I rejoiced (=NMM) over the Israelites in nearly wiping them out.” It is significant that the spelling of the first occurrence of =NMM is adapted to the biblical word =NEE: Ms Oxford spells =NEE, a Genizah fragment =NEM; the other witnesses have the correct spelling. For this and the following example see also Mart†n-Contreras, “Noticias Masor¦ticas,” 123 – 124.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

98

Günter Stemberger

pretation refers to the miracles God has wrought at the Sea, which seems to be derived from A@4, ‘to be strong’ – but all three witnesses write, “Who is like you under the mute ones” (be-’ilmim), perhaps a mistake. The next interpretation clearly sees God as the silent one, but then also offers a series of interpretations reading 9@=45, ‘among those’ who serve in heaven, or those who call themselves gods or are called gods by others. This last interpretation seems to take the biblical word as basis for a notarikon (A8M 9@=45) or to do entirely away with the last letter of the word. The search for the precise meaning of this particular spelling gives way to homiletic associations. Were it not for the unique reading of Ms Oxford, I do not know if we would discuss this text in the context of the Masorah. Another passage based on a defective spelling of the biblical text is Mek Beshallah 7 on Exod 14:29 (Horovitz-Rabin 111 – 112): ˙ “But the people of Israel walked on dry ground through the sea:” The ministering angels were amazed, saying, Can mortals, idolaters, go on dry land through the sea? And how do we know that even the sea was filled with wrath (8B=;) against them? Because above it says: “The waters being a wall (8B9;) to them,” and here is 8B; written without a waw (9’9 LE; 5=N? 8B; C4?9 –Thus making possible the reading ‘anger’ instead of ‘wall’).

The text I have quoted is that of Ms Oxford. Ms Munich, Ms Vatican and the Genizah fragment Kaufmann 225 read instead of the last sentence: “Do not read homah, ˙ but hemah” (8B=; 4@4 8B9; 4LK=N @4); thus also Ms Casanatense (but spelling ˙ =LK=N) and the editio princeps (=LKN). But another fragment from the Genizah (BL OR 5559 A 18) offers again a slightly different wording of the end: “And even the sea was filled with wrath (8B=;) against them. Because above it says: ‘wrath,’ but here it says ‘wall’ (8B9; ’94 498 C?9 8B=; ’94 98 C@FB@M 8B=; C=8@F 4@BND A=8 G49).9 The reading of the fragment T-S C 4.3 is similar, but reads twice 8B9; (8B9; ’94 498 C?9 8B9; ’94 498 C@FB@M 8B=; A8=@F 4@BND A=8 G4M ’DB). Thus, it is clear that the Italian manuscripts (Oxford and Munich are also of Italian origin) and the editio princeps which is based on an Italian text type have two different forms of the technical term. They are supported by a single fragment from the Genizah, whereas two other fragments do not have a technical term, but simply state that they once read 8B9; and once 8B=;. The word occurs in Exod 15:22 and 29, both times written defectively. 8B; in v. 22 is understood as 8B=;, apparently because it is seen to cause the death of the Egyptians who follow the Israelites into the Sea (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Neofiti and one of the 9 This is the transcription of S. Friedman and L. Moscovitz, Primary Textual Witnesses to Tannaitic Literature, Bar Ilan data-base (Bar Ilan University). Online: http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/ tannaim/; M. I. Kahana (The Genizah Fragments of the Halakhic Midrashim. Part I [Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2005], 60) reads first 8B9; and then 8B=;.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

99

Preliminary Notes on Grammar and Orthography

Fragmentary targumim add in v. 24 that God looked on the camp of the Egyptians in anger, :69L5, although they do not add any explanation in v. 22). The interpretation is based on the defective writing of the word, but does not yet use a technical term for it; the technical term is clearly a later addition.10 A last example is Mek Wayassa 1 (Horovitz-Rabin 155 f.) on Exod 15:25: “The Lord showed him a piece of wood” (IF 898= 98L9=9). At first the Rabbis discuss what kind of wood it was, a willow, an olive, or an ivy. R. Shimon ben Yohai then gives a metaphorical interpretation: It was a word from the Torah that he showed him. For it says: “The Lord showed him (98[=]L9=9) wood,” as in the passage where it says: “He taught me (=D=L9=9), and said to me, Let your heart hold fast my words” (Prov 4:4).

Other interpretations that follow understand the wood to be cedar or as the root of a fig or a pomegranate. Thus, the saying attributed to Shimon ben Yohai interrupts a list of natural interpretations. Here Ms Oxford breaks off, a leaf is missing; but the other witnesses continue with the interpretation of the allegorical interpreters (N9B9ML =ML97) who offer an interpretation equivalent to that of Shimon ben Yohai, and with the same prooftext. One of the two passages is obviously a doublet of the other. But let us look at the text of Ms Munich: And R. Shimon ben Yohai says: It was a word from the Torah that he showed him. For it says: “The Lord showed him (98[=]L9=9).” ‘And he showed him’ (we-yar’ehu) is not written here, but ‘he taught him’ (we-yorehu) (98L9=9 4@4 C4? ’N? C=4 984L=9), as in the passage… (Prov 4:4).

I assume that the passage printed in italics dropped out from Ms Oxford because of homoioteleuton; but I cannot exclude the possibility that Ms Munich has added these words. The editio princeps has the passage, but with another wording: 4@4 ’B94 9D=4 98L9=9. The reading rejected is offered by a number of biblical manuscripts and is considered as the possible correct reading in the apparatus of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica. We could consider this passage as a typical Masoretic annotation,11 but the textual fluctuation of the Mekhilta texts (and perhaps also the reduplication within the Midrash) makes it once more clear that we probably deal with a later gloss.

˘

10 Another example of the phrase is to be found in Mek Amaleq 1 (Horovitz-Rabin 177), discussing 2 Chr 24:24: A=ü9HM 4@4 A=üHM (=LK=N) 4LKN @4. But here again we find a different wording in a Genizah fragment: 4L9K =8N @4. 11 On this passage see Mart†n-Conteras, “El principio hermen¦utico,” 96 – 97.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

100

3.

Günter Stemberger

Conclusions

Elman whom I quoted at the beginning, thinks that there is a great difference between the discussion of the grammatical gender in b. Qid 2b and that in Mek Shirata and Sifra Behuqqotai. As to Mek he states: “This is hardly a grammatical ˙ question;” the meaning of the text in Sifra appears obscure to him.12 I am not so sure, whether the texts of the Babylonian Talmud and of the Mekhilta are so different from each other. Perhaps Elman emphasizes this difference only because the text of the Mekhilta might contradict his late dating of the talmudic passage. But the date of the Mekhilta is still disputed. If one were to accept the late dating of Ben Zion Wacholder,13 the passage would be contemporary with that of the Babylonian Talmud, as dated by Elman. For many reasons that I cannot spell out here, I do not accept Wacholder’s dating. I still consider a date somewhere in the third or early fourth century as the most likely for the main body of the Mekhilta; but a more precise history of its (perhaps much more protracted) redaction has yet to be worked out; it also has to be conceded that there are a number of passages that look late. For the time being, I would be rather inclined to think that late additions (or a late revision of the text) are responsible for these passages that are so isolated within contemporary rabbinic literature as long as we stick to the traditional date. All texts dealing with questions of spelling and orthography proved to be very unstable, a fact normally taken as pointing to later additions. In the case of the grammatical questions discussed at the beginning, the textual tradition of the Mekhilta is rather stable; but the isolation of these passages within their assumed time of redaction calls for further investigation. The spelling of biblical words is sometimes at the basis of an interpretation, and there is no doubt that the defective spelling of certain biblical words drew the attention of the Rabbis already very early. It is clear that this points to a scribal tradition of the biblical texts regarded as normative, at least in liturgical copies (most Rabbis did not have personal copies of the Torah). Using such spellings for interpretation is one thing, the use of a specific Masoretic terminology something quite different. The textual transmission of the Mekhilta makes it quite clear that at least such formulations are later additions. Thus, they cannot be taken as evidence for an early beginning of a Masoretic activity in the technical meaning of the term.

12 Elman, “The World of the Sabboraim,” 384 – 385, n. 4. For Sifra, he points to a different reading of Samson of Sens (L5:68 AM @F =9LK 87M8M 7B@B), which J. N. Epstein (Introduction to Tannaitic Literature: Mishna, Tosephta and Halakhic Midrashim [Heb.; ed. E. Z. Melamed; Jerusalem: Magnus, 1957], 696) considers to be an emendation. 13 B. Z. Wacholder, “The Date of the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael,” HUCA 39 (1968), 117 – 144.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate, Aramaic and Syriac Versions of 1 – 2 Kings vis-à-vis the Masoretic Text and the Greek Version1

The variants of Hebrew medieval manuscripts and the readings of the Aramaic, Syriac and Vulgate versions belong to the textual tradition of the MT. None of the distinctive characteristics of the Septuagint correspond to the medieval manuscripts or to those three versions.2 But in the books of Kings, the medieval Hebrew manuscripts (Ms/Mss) and the Targum (T), Peshitta (S) and Vulgate (V) ˙ attest readings which agree with both the Greek Kaige text as extant in the B text and with the Old Greek as preserved by the pre-Lucianic text.3 1 The research for this paper was done under the auspices of Research Project “Ediciûn electrûnica pol†glota-sinûptica de 1 – 2 Reyes,” funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Investigaciûn, Ciencia e Innovaciûn. We thank Prof. Juan Jos¦ Alarcûn, member of the research team that carried out this project, for his careful revision of the Aramaic and Syriac variants quoted in this paper. 2 The Greek version falls on the side of the textual pluralism featured in Qumran versus the tendency to textual fixation already manifest in the other Dead Sea caves, see E. Tov, “The Nature of the Large-Scale Differences between the LXX and MT S T V, Compared with Similar Evidence in Other Sources,” in A. Schenker (ed.), The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered (Atlanta/Leiden: Society of Biblical Literature/Brill, 2003), 121 – 144; id., “The Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Bible Used in the Ancient Synagogues,” in id., Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran. Colleted Essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 171 – 188; id., “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Textual History of the Masoretic Text,” in N. D‚vid, A. Lange, K. De Troyer and S. Tzoref (eds.), The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 41 – 53. 3 The terms and sigla used in the paper are the following: MT = the Masoretic Text; G or OG = the original Greek of the Septuagint; LXXB or B = the text of the group of manuscripts B 121 509 and in general the majority text; LXXA = the text of the group of LXX manuscripts A 247; LXXL = the text of the group of manuscripts 19 82 93 108 127; AL = the common text of the groups of manuscripts A and L; Hex = the Hexaplaric text; OL = the Old Latin version or text; SyroH = the Syrohexaplaric text; Arm = the Armenian version or the Armenian text; Aeth = the Ethiopic version of the Ethiopic text; T = the Targum or Aramaic version or text; S = the Syriac Peshitta version or text; V = the Latin Vulgata version or text; Vrs = the Aramaic, ˙ Syriac and Vulgate versions together or some of them; R: Rossi mss; K: Kennicott mss. The rest of the signs follow Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia conventions.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

102

Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano

The influential and negative opinion of Moshe Goshen-Gottstein regarding the value of the medieval Hebrew variants is well known, although he himself acknowledged that: the analysis of readings such as in the Book of Kings may at least justify the mentioning of the possibility that different results may be obtained for different books (or parts) of the Bible and that, accordingly, we may have to reckon with different ‘breadths’ of the ‘central current’ and different strengths of the ‘trickle’ from the side.4

John W. Wevers dedicated a long detailed study published in 1945 to the question of the relationship between the LXX textual variants and the Hebrew medieval variants in Kings. Wevers begins his article proposing the following hypothesis: If it can be demonstrated that pre-Masoretic traditions are perpetuated by readings in the mss. collated by B. Kennicott and G. B. de Rossi (as well as by Ch. Ginsburg) then these variants must be considered in a new light in the textual criticism of the O.T.5

The aim of this paper is to revisit Goshen-Gottstein’s and Wever’s opinions. In order to do so, the agreements between the Medieval Hebrew variants and LXX readings will first be studied, followed by the agreements between the Medieval Hebrew variants and the Aramaic, Syriac and Vulgate versions with LXX readings. The study intends to reflect both the quantity and the quality of the evidence and consider, at the same time, both the textual affiliation of the diverse readings in Mss and T, S, and V and their critical value as witnesses to the Old Greek (OG) or Kaige texts.6

1.

Agreement of Hebrew Variants with LXX Readings

Wevers classifies the 629 variants in the following sections, in which G corresponds to “the original Greek of the Septuagint as far as that can be determined from the existing evidence:”

4 M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their History and Their Place in the HUBP Edition,” Bib 48 (1967), 243 – 290, esp. 287. In 1 Samuel the group of mss Kennicott 70, 89, 174 and 187 provides variants that differ from the MT. 5 J. W. Wevers, “A Study in the Hebrew Variants in the Books of Kings,” ZAW 20 (1945 – 1948), 43 – 76, esp. 45. 6 The OG text is the one transmitted by the group of manuscripts B 121 – 509 and the majority tradition of LXX, including the Antioquean text (LXX – L, mss 106, 107, 119, 134, 158), in the non-Kaige section gg, 3 Reg 2:12 – 21:43. The Kaige text is that transmitted by the B 121 – 509 and the majority tradition of the LXX in the Kaige sections: bg 3 Reg 1:1 – 2:11 and gd 3 Reg 22 – 4 Reg. In these sections, the OG or some text close to it has been preserved only in the Antioquean text, attested also by the Old Latin, Josephus, the prehexaplaric level of the Armenian and Georgian versions and also by the parallel Hebrew of Chronicles.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate

1. Instances where G has counterparts in the Hebrew variants: a. Cases where G, Hex and LXXL together agree with the Hebrew variants b. Cases where both G and Hex agree with the Hebrew variants c. Cases where G and LXXL agree with the Hebrew variants d. Instances in which only G agrees with the Hebrew variants 2. Instances where Hex agrees with the Hebrew variants: a. Cases where both Hex and LXXL agree with the Hebrew variants b. Instances where only Hex agrees with the Hebrew variants 3. Instances where LXXL agrees with the Hebrew variants

103 246 33 75 66 20 35 154

Considering text G as OG as Wevers does, there are 420 cases of agreement between the medieval Hebrew mss and the OG (66.77 % of the total). The most significant data is the high proportion of cases in which the Hebrew variants agree with the Lucianic text alone (Mss = LXXL ¼ 6 G Hex): 154, i. e. 24.48 % of the total. Wevers’ classification does not take into account the division of the text into Kaige bc: 1 Kgs 1:1 – 2:11, cd: 1 Kgs 22:1 – 2 Kgs 25:30 and non-Kaige cc 1 Kgs 2:12 – 21:43 sections or the fact that in the Kaige sections G does not represent the OG text but that of this Kaige recension, which goes back to a proto-Masoretic text. In order to reconstruct the OG text of these sections we have to resort to a pre-Lucianic text which must be reconstructed from the Lucianic recension and witnesses like OL, Josephus, the prehexaplaric level of the Armenian and Georgian versions and the parallel Hebrew text of Chronicles. Alfred Rahlfs himself used the Hebrew text to decide whether the passages with the Lucianic reading should be considered pre-Lucian “weil sie… wahrscheinlich auf alte hebräische Grundlagen zurückgeht.” Of the 34 cases of pre-Lucianic readings accepted by Rahlfs, 23 correspond to a Kaige section, and only 9 to the non-Kaige section.7 Taking into account the division into Kaige and non-Kaige sections, the distribution of agreements between Greek readings and Hebrew variants gives the following results:

7 A. Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher (Septuaginta-Studien 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 283 – 290.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

104

Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano

1. G has counterparts in the Hebrew variants Non-Kaige section Kaige section a. G Hex and LXXL = Mss b. G and Hex = Mss c. G and LXXL = Mss d. Only G = Mss 2. Hex agrees with the Hebrew variants a. Hex and LXXL = Mss b. Only Hex = Mss

134 10 50 21 6 22 32

109 23 30 41 14 16 121

3. LXXL agrees with the Hebrew variants

1) Again, the most outstanding fact is the high proportion of cases in which Mss agree with LXXL alone only in the Kaige sections, 121 (79.08 %), as compared to 32 cases in the non-Kaige section (20.91 %). Given that in the Kaige sections the Lucianic text preserves a proto-Lucianic textual layer akin to the OG, the agreements of Mss with proto-Lucianic readings attest to a different Hebrew text akin to the Hebrew Vorlage of the OG. In many cases, the coincidences between Mss and LXXL are also shared as well by the secondary versions of the Septuagint, mainly, the Ethiopic, Armenian, Coptic, Georgian and OL, which could confirm the pre-Lucianic character and, finally, the OG origin of the variants of LXXL. In 72 of the 121 agreements between Mss and LXXL, these versions support the reading of both of these sources. This 58 % of agreement is distributed according to the following table: Georgian

Armenian Ethiopic Coptic Old Latin Syrohexapla Armenian + Georgian

32 1 Kgs 1:3; 1:17.27 2 Kgs 2:12.15b; 3:18; 4:13.35; 5:7.8.12.27; 6:32; 7:12.12b; 8:24; 9:32; 10:14b.18.19.28.33; 14:21; 15:14.20; 16:9; 19:6; 20:14; 21:22.25; 15:14 2 Kgs 5:7b; 15:16; 16:19b; 22:9 2 Kgs 5:18; 6:12: 7:9; 16:19: 20:21 2 Kgs 15:26.31 2 Kgs 6:12; 15:38; 18:16 1 Kgs 1:1; 2 Kgs 7:3 4 1 Kgs 1:16; 2 Kgs 2:15.21; 4:26; 5 14:13; 15:25; 18:14; 20:8; 23:3 1 Kgs 1:52 1 Kgs 2:1; 2 Kgs 3:7; 6:8 2 1 Kgs 1:12 3 1 Kgs 12:19 2 2 Kgs 18:34; 24:12 9 2 Kgs 4:2.5; 10:19b; 11:19; 19:14; 23:6 2 Kgs 10:6 2 Kgs 10:31

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate

Armenian + Coptic + Georgian + Old Latin Georgian + Old Latin Ethiopic + Armenian + Georgian Armenian + Coptic + Georgian Armenian + Ethiopic Ethiopic + Georgian

1 3 1 1 2 6

Ethiopic + Old Latin + Georgian Ethiopic + Georgian + SyroH

1 1

105

A complete text of the Coptic and OL versions is not available. Therefore, the two instances from the Coptic and the three from the OL do not adequately represent these versions. The weight of some of the versions, such as the Georgian and the Armenian, is important in the total result. In 60 cases (84 %), the Armenian, the Georgian or both agree with LXXL and Mss. According to these data, the Caucasian versions constitute important witnesses to the Lucianic recension, which has been underestimated up to now.8 2) The number of cases in which Mss agree only with the B text (Mss = B ¼ 6 AL) is also noteworthy : 21 in the non-Kaige section and 39 in the Kaige sections. Wevers’ abbreviation G here designates only the text of the B group (manuscripts B 121 – 509), which in the Kaige section is a recensional text. The 39 cases in the Kaige sections are the following:9 1 Kings (MT] Mss B) 1:23 LB4@] om K1 109 1:35 8798= @F9] 8798=9 K 154 2:5 8B;@B =B7 CN=9 A@M5] K 60 80 109 125 174 2 Kings 2:3 898= A9=8] A9=8 898= K 96 2:20

9;K=9] 94=5=9

K 182

B] + kecomtym/kecomter AL Arm B] pr epi AL B] + em eiqgmg jai edyjem aila ahyom AL (* hexaplaric)10 Juqior sgleqom B] sgleqom kalbamei Juqior LXXL Arm Aeth ekabom B LXXA LXXL] gmecjam rell

8 We owe the research on the Georgian version to Andr¦s Piquer ; see A. Piquer, P. Torijano and J. Trebolle, “Septuagint Versions, Greek Recensions and Hebrew Editions. The Text-Critical Evaluation of the Old Latin, Armenian and Georgian Versions in III – IV Regnorum,” in H. Ausloos, J. Cook, F. Garc†a-Mart†nez, B. Lemmelijn and M. Vervenne (eds.), Translating a Translation. The Septuagint and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 251 – 281. 9 In 1 – 2 Kings the Kennicott mss that differ from MT on at least in three occasions are the following: 1, 70, 96, 158, 109, 182 and 187. 10 Rahlfs includes the hexaplaric addition of LXXA em eiqgmg jai edyjem aila ahyom in his edition.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

106

Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano

3:25 4:16

8@F] ;LK 8@F K 158 ;LK 8@F ;LK NML;] om K 99 A=8@48 M=4] om K 19

4:36

84LK=9] 4LK=9

K 240

4:39 5:1 5:13 5:13 8:29 10:14

45=9] om ý@B] om 9LB4=9] om =54] om 8798= ý@B] om A==; A9MHN=9] om

K 224 K 109 K 384 K 96 151 K 114 K 1 128 Rpr. 305 596

2:23

10:14 4@9] 4@ 10:27 @F58 …9JN=9 (2)] om 11:9 N5M8 =4J= AF] om

K 93 154 K 1 82 Rpr. 596 604 701 789; nunc 226

13:3 13:5 15:29 15:30 15:32

K 96 K 171 K 102 225 300 K 187 K 187

7=59] 7=5 @4LM=@] om N@6N] N6@N 8=:F] 8=L:F 8=:F] 8=L:F

440

K 150

15:34 98=:F] 98=L:F K 187 15:38 9=N54 AF L5K=9] om K 21 30 102 176 300; nunc 198 R 319 579; pr. 3 21 196 210

16:6 AM] om 16:11 KMB7B…(7)…C?] om

K 30 K 70 158 201

17:25 18:36 19:6 19:13

K 145 K 85 K 180 K 182

898= (2)] om 4=8] om =N4] om L=F@] om

(om. ;LK 2 R. 765) amabaime vukajqe jahgqglemour B] sub * SyroH lou B] + amhqype tou heou AL a’ (*) jai ejakesem B] + autgm AL Arm a’ s’ (*) B] + ekhym/jai eisgkhe AL s’ B] + basikeyr LXXL (mss) (*) B A L] + kecomter a’ s’ h’ (*) B] + pateq AL a’ s’ h’ (*) B] + basikeyr iouda AL a’ s’ h’ (*) B] + jai sumekabom autour/jai sumekabomto autour fymtar AL (*)11 ou B] pr jai LXXL Arm Aeth B] + jai jaheikom tom oijom tou baak/autou AL (*)12 B] + leta tym ejpoqeuolemym to sabbatom LXXA Arm (e’ h’ *) leta tym eispoqeuolemym jai ejpoqeuolemym to sabbatom LXXL (*)13 jai B] pr * c2 B sytgqiam isqagk] * a’ e’ h’ akcah B] hackah awar B / afaqiou] ofiou / owofiou afaqiou B] ofiou LXXA Ozias OL Arm ofeiar B] afaqiar LXXA jai etavg leta tym pateqym autou B] > LXXA sub * ic2 ejei B] sub * SyroH B] + outyr epoigsem ouqiar o ieqeur Akcah eyr tou ekheim tom basikea apo dalasjou AL a’ s’ h’ (*) juqior] * ebq. a’ s’ h’ e’ SyroH basikeyr B] + autg LXXL assuqiym B] + ele LXXA B] + tgr pokeyr AL Arm (*)

11 Rahlfs includes the hexaplaric addition jai sumekabom autour fymtar. The textual analysis of this passage must take into account other variants attested by LXXL and OL. 12 Rahlfs includes the hexaplaric addition jai jaheikom tom oijom tou baak. 13 Rahlfs includes the hexaplaric addition of LXXA Arm (e’ h’ *) leta tym ejpopeuolemym to sabbatom. In the same way, the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) does not note the omission of the OG and K150. The Lucianic text presents other variants that must be considered when establishing the OG text of this passage.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate

19:26 8H7M9] 8B7M9 20:2 9=DH N4] om

K 172 180 mg 201 K 89

22:1 98=M4=] om 22:17 8MFB @?5] 8MFB5

K nunc 82 K 158 Rpr. 211

23:10 =N@5@] om 24:4 LM4] om 24:17 977] 9D5

Rpr. 304 518 Rpr. 440 Rpr. 701

25:18 8DMB] 8DMB8

K 1 30 85 150 154 175 180 201 225; pr. 21; nunc 224

107

Isa 37:27 8B7M9 BA] + to pqosypom autou M omn (*)14 iyseiar B] pr * SyroH em toir eqcoir B] em pasi toir eqcoir LXXL diacaceim B] + lg LXXL Arm eneweem B] pr o/y LXXL Arm uiom autou B] adekvom tou patqor autou Arm Aeth uiom B] pr tom LXXL Arm; Jer 52:24 8DMB8

Of the 39 cases of agreement between the Mss and the B text, 26 are omissions with regard to MT. At least 12 of these omissions correspond to the OG (and Mss). They were later supplemented by hexaplaric additions: 1 Kgs 2:5; 4:16; 4:36; 5:1; 5:13; 5:13; 8:29; 10:14; 10:27; 11:9; 16:11; 20:2. It is quite significant that in such cases the medieval manuscripts attest prehexaplaric readings. They coincide with a Kaige Greek text (B) that has a proto-Masoretic Hebrew as Vorlage that lacked at least some of the hexaplaric additions (to what degree can a Hebrew text be called proto-Masoretic without the passages corresponding to the hexaplaric Greek additions?) 3) Most of the variants of the Mss agree with the Greek text of the B, LXXA and LXXL groups of manuscripts. Normally, they correspond to OG readings. Almost every one of the 134 variants in the non-Kaige section and of the 109 variants in the Kaige sections follows that pattern. Thus, the medieval variants follow guidelines marked by the textual tradition and correlate with the three basic forms of the text of Kings: OG text transmitted by LXXL in the Kaige section, text of the Kaige recension transmitted by B in the Kaige section and OG text transmitted by BL in both sections.

2.

Agreement of Hebrew Variants + Aramaic, Syriac and Vulgate Versions with LXX Readings

The tables at the end of this paper contain lists of textual variants according to the critical notes of the BHS. The first table lists agreements of Hebrew variants and the versions in the non-Kaige cc section of 1 Kings. The second table contains agreements of Mss + Vrs in the Kaige cd section. The third table shows a list of agreements of Vrs with LXX without any counterpart in the Mss (Kaige sections). 14 Rahlfs also includes the hexaplaric addition to pqosypom autou in this case.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

108

Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano

Only the variants from Mss and Vrs that have correspondence with the Greek text are taken into consideration. Neither the variants of these versions nor the variants of the medieval manuscripts with regard to the MT will be specifically studied here. The total of variants in Tables 1 and 2 (Mss + Vrs) is 352, 195 of them in the Kaige sections and 157 in the non-Kaige section. Not only is the number of variants larger in the Kaige sections than in the non-Kaige, but the agreements between Mss + Vrs vis-—-vis the LXX differ in relation to the type of the Greek text represented. In the non-Kaige section, this Greek text is commonly that of B and LXXL, both representing the OG. In the Kaige sections, the Hebrew variants and, above all, the Targum, Syriac and Vulgate versions differ according to the form of the Greek text to which they correspond: the B Kaige text or the preLucianic akin to the OG. A comparison of Tables 1 and 2 makes clear the different presence of the abbreviation LXXL in the non-Kaige section and in the two Kaige sections. The value of the Aramaic text of the Targum resides in the fact that its text is a fairly faithful reproduction of MT, in the same way that the text of the Peshit.ta is a direct translation into Syriac from a Hebrew Vorlage of some type15 and the Vulgata a direct version by Jerome from a Hebrew original. In the non-Kaige section of 1 Kings agreements of Mss with LXXL against B are not frequent (9 instances): + 8DüK pc Mss + lijqam LXXL SW 795:9] L9?:9 pc Mss fajwouq LXXL, A9=8] om Ms om sgleqom LXXL S, et (habebat) LMF] LMF9 nonn Mss + jai LXXL, LB N] LBN K, LB7N Q mlt Mss hodloq LXXL, L9B7N T, S, Palmyram V, 2Chr 8:4 LB7N 10:8 =LM4] =LM49 nonn Mss + jai LXXL Arm Aeth, =59ü9 TMs, et (beati) V 12:16 @4LM=] AF8 Ms isqagk] o kaor LXXL, populus V 12:27 =D6L89] om pc Mss jai apojtemousim le] om LXXL OL (Lucifer)16 21:19 LB4@] om pc Mss om kecym LXXL Aeth(uid), om S

2:16 4:5 5:21 6:3 9:18

On the contrary, in the Kaige sections the frequency of agreements of the Mss with LXXL against B is much higher (46 instances, after removing some questionable cases):17 15 J. M. Mulder, “The Use of the Peshitta in Textual Criticism,” in N. Fern‚ndez Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la Investigaciûn Contempor‚nea. V Congreso de la IOSCS (Madrid: CSIC, 1985), 37 – 53; H. Gottlieb and E. Hammershaimb, The Books of Kings, in The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version, Part 2, fasc. 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1976). 16 The omission of LXXL OL may represent the OG text against the reading jai apojtemousim le favoured by Rahlfs. 17 In 2 Kgs 10:14 the Mss agree with LXXL against B, but B represents here the OG and LXXL follows the LXXA hexaplaric text: A==; A=MHN=9] om pc mss; fymtar B] + jai sumekabom autour LXXL *; + jai sumekabom autour fymtar A*; om SMW. Rahlfs incorporates this he-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

109

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate

1 Kings (bc) 1:3 @956] om Ms 1:16 LB4=9] +8@ mlt Mss 2:4 LB4@] om Ms 2:5 LM4] LM49 pc Mss 2 Kings (cd) 2:15 984L=9] 94L=9 pc Mss 2:17 984JB] 94JB 2 Mss 2:21 4@9 mlt Mss 3:27 IL4@] AJL4@ Mss 7:6 9=;4] 98FL nonn Mss 7:9 A9=8] A9=89 Mss 7:12 8@=@] om Ms 7:12 4D-] om 2 Mss 9:25 L?:]L?9: Ms 9:32 9=DH] 9=D=FMs 10:6 =MD4] om Mss 10:12 498] 4989Ms 10:19 @?] -9 Mss 10:25 L=F] om Ms 10:28 N4] + N=5 Mss 11:13 AF8] AF89 Ms 11:15 =7KH]=7KH9 2 Mss 14:13 LFM5]LFMB pc Mss 14:21 8=L:F] + 9D5 Ms 15:14 C9LBM5] om Ms 15:30 A=LMF NDM5] om Ms 15:38 9=54] om 2 Mss 16:19 LM4] pr @?9 mlt Mss 17:24 A=9LHE9]A=9LHEB9 QOr 17:27 18:14 18:20 18:34 19:15

AN=@68]A=N – Ms N4]N49 Ms 8NF]8NF9 2 Mss 8=4]8=49 pc Mss LB4=9]LB4@ Ms

ej pamtor oqiou] em pamti LXXL eipem] + autg LXXL, +8@ TfMs, +

S, ad quem V

kecym 28] om LXXL V osa 28] pr jai osa LXXL,

Arm, Aeth,

om autom LXXL Arm,

S

S

om autom LXXL, invenierunt V 4@ B] pr jai LXXL Arm, 4@9 T, Arm, + autym LXXL, terram suam V adekvom] pkgsiom LXXL, 8L5; Tfmss,

S, pr et V

S,

S

pr jai LXXL (enim V) om mujtor LXXL om LXXL S V lmglomeuy] lelmglai LXXL, S, memini V to pqosypom] tour ovhaklour L, SW om amdqym LXXL S V autor] pr jai LXXL, Arm(uid), Aeth, S, cumque V pr jai LXXL, @?9 TfMss, S, pr et V eyr pokeyr oijou] eyr tou maou LXXL + (jai) tom oijom LXXL pr jai LXXL pr jai LXXL Arm, FLNB T, em tg pukg] apo tgr pukgr LXXL, S, a porta V, LFMB 2 Chr + uiom autou LXXL em salaqeia] om LXXL, om TMs om LXXL om tou patqor autou LXXL OL Arm, om Tf, om S S osa] pr jai pamta LXXL, @?9 TfMs, pc Mss apo sepvaqeil LXXL, Arm, A=9LHEB9 T, S, et de Sepharvaim V apyjisa LXXL, C9D9N=@647 TfMs S o] jai osa LXXL, N=9 Tf, mum] jai mum LXXL OL, Arm, Aeth, C9F?9 Tf Arm, Aeth, C49 TMss, S pou 28] pr jai LXXL, jai eipem] kecym LXXL, dicens V Isa 37:15

xaplaric reading in his edition when the OG has a shorter reading. It is necessary to study all the cases where the MT or LXX add or omit the clause that conveys the fulfilment of a previous order, as in this case: “He said: ‘Take them alive.’ [They took them alive.] They slaughtered them…”

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

110 19:37

Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano

22:13 23:4 23:619 23:17 24:12

ý@BL749] ’4 2 Mss 98=K:;] + =;=9 Ms 9LB4] +ý@ Ms 898=] +N945J 2 Mss 9N=5 C65] om Ms 898=] om 2 Mss 8MF]LM4 @?9 mlt Mss 9D=@F] 9=@F Ms AHLM=9]A9H – Ms L5K]=L5K Ms @4 N=5]@4 N=55 ý@B @F]ý@B @4

25:8

8F5M5]8FMN5

20:12 20:14 20:16 21:18 21:22 21:25

om jai LXXL Arm-ed Aeth,

SV

S + jai amestg LXXL, + ekakgsam] pqor se LXXL, + S juqiou] + pamtqojqatotor LXXL, Isa 39:5 tou oijou autou em jgpy] om LXXL ; autou em jgpy om Aeth18 juqiom] om LXXL osa] pr jai pamta LXXL, S jah glym] em auty LXXL S jatejausem] jatejausam LXXL Aeth, tom tavom] tour tavour LXXL, =L5K@ T, S pc Mss baihek] pr to em LXXL, @4 N=55 T, S Arm, Aeth, 4?@B @4 pc Mss epi] pqor LXXL, S, ad V TMs, 2 Mss ebdolg] ematg LXXL, S

This study does not determine which readings correspond to a proto-Lucianic text also attested by the Aramaic, Syriac and Vulgate versions (or by some of them). The case of 14:13 would be a good example of such proto-Lucianic Arm, readings representing the OG: LFM5 em B]LFMB pc Mss L (apo), S, a (porta) V, 2 Chr LFMB. Similar instances are 1 Kgs 1:3; 2:4; FLNB T, 2:5; 2 Kgs 2:15; 2:17; 2:21; 3:27; 7:12 (2x); 10:6; 10:12; 15:30; 16:19; 17:27; 19:15; 23:17. Of these 16 cases, 11 are shorter readings in the LXX: 1 Kgs 1:3; 2:4; 2 Kgs 7:12; 7:12; 10:6; 10:25; 15:14; 15:30; 15:38; 21:18; 21:22. The changes of @4 to @F or @F to @4 may seem insignificant, as they were equivalent particles, but the Greek tradition distinguishes between pqor = @4 and epi = @F, supporting one or another reading of both the original Greek text and its Hebrew Vorlage. Such is the case with 2 Kgs 24:12 @F, epi LXXB] @4 pc Mss, pqor LXXL Arm Aeth TMs S V. Rahlfs’ edition follows LXXB, whose reading of epi corresponds to the Kaige text: jai engkhem Iyajil basikeur Iouda epi basikea Babukymor. However, the OG reading seems to be the one attested by LXXL pqor, with the support of the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, some Hebrew medieval manuscripts and the Aramaic, Syriac and Vulgate versions. In the same way, in 2 Kgs 9:14 @4, pqor LXXB] epi LXX19 93, the reading epi from LXXL corresponds to the OG text against the Kaige reading pqor followed by Rahlfs. OG attests to the reading with the particle @F taken by the verb LMK, ‘to conspire against’, with the 18 In 2 Kgs 21:18 the omission of tou oijou autou em jgpy in LXXL and of autou em jgpy in Aeth attest the OG short reading jai etavg em jgpy Ofa against B jai etavg em ty jgpy tou oijou autou, em jgpy Ofa, which Rahlfs follows in his edition. This long Kaige reading follows MT 9N=5 C65 (om one Ms). OL (Lucifer) attest an even shorter reading that omits the B reading (jai – Ofa). 19 The BGS marks the Vulgate reading as plural, but really reads sepulchrum in the singular as the MT does.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate

111

only exception in 2 Kgs 9:14.20 In LXX, the verb sustqeveim takes epi in every case,21 with an exception made in 2 Kgs 9:14 pqor and also 21:23, where LXXL (Arm) has the reading epi, which corresponds to the OG text, against the variant of LXXB pqor that Rahfls follows in his edition.22 The Hebrew text employed by the writer of 4Qpap paraKings (4Q382) is more closely related to the Hebrew underlying LXX than to MT. In frg. 9, line 6, the preposition @4, missing in MT, is reflected in LXX pqor. Likewise in frg. 11 (9;=L=) @F, absent from MT, is reflected in the LXX reading eir Ieqiwy.23 Kim Jong-Hoon has done a detailed study of the Greek translation of @4 and @F in 2 Sam 15:1 – 19:9. He notes that the cases of pqor (or eir) versus epi make it possible to suppose the existence of a different textual tradition, as in 17:14 where the whole Greek tradition has epi (= @F) against MT @4. Jong-Hoon does not take into account the witness of the medieval manuscripts and the versions, so he is not aware that some Mss and the Targum know the reading @F, which supports his hypothesis.24 When speaking of the agreements between Mss and LXX (see above, 1.), the cases of agreement between Mss + Vrs and the three basic textual forms of LXX must also be considered: OG text transmitted by LXXL in the Kaige section, text of the Kaige recension transmitted by B in the Kaige section and the OG text transmitted by BL in both sections.

20 1 Sam 22:8; 22:13; 1 Kgs 15:27; 16:9; 2 Kgs 10:9; 14:19; 15:10; 15:30; 21:13; 2 Chr 24:21; 24:25; 24:26; 25:27; 33:24. 21 1 Kgs 16:9; 10:9; 14:19; 15:10; 15:25; 21:24. 22 Cases in which the variant @4/@F may be significative are more numerous in the Kaige sections than in the non-Kaige section: 1 Kgs 1:33 C=;6 @4 ] @F eir mlt Mss 1 Kgs 1:38 C=;6 @F] C=;6 @4 pc Mss (Vrs) 1 Kgs 22:17 pc Mss T S and 2 Chr 18:16 2 Kgs 8:3 8N=5 @4] 8N=5 @F v. 5 2 Kgs 8:3 87M @4] 87M @F (6Q4) 2 Kgs 9:3 @4] @F mlt Mss 2 Kgs 9:6 @4] @F mlt Mss 2 Kgs 9:12 @4] @F mlt Mss 2 Kgs 10:15 85?LB8 @4 9=@4 98@F=9] 85?LB8 @F 9=@4 98@F=9 pc Mss 2 Kgs 19:34 @4] @F nonn Mss (Isaiah) 2 Kgs 22:20 @F] @4 nonn Mss, LXX pqor. In the non-Kaige section: 1 Kgs 9:5 @F] @4 mlt Mss G ty (Vrs); 1 Kgs 19:19 9=@4] 9=@F pc Mss G epi (Vrs). 23 S. Olyan, “4Q382. 4Qpap paraKings et al. (Pls. XXXVIII – XLI),” in H. Attridge, T. Elgvin, J. Milik, S. Olyan and S. White, in consultation with J. VanderKam (eds.), Qumran Cave 4, VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (DJD XIII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 363 – 416. 24 K. Jong-Hoon, Die hebräischen und griechischen Textformen der Samuel- und Königsbücher. Studien zur Textgeschichte ausgehend von 2Sam 15,1 – 19,9 (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 259 – 262.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

112

Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano

An example of agreement of Mss + Vrs with the Kaige text is 2 Kgs 15:10: @5K AF] AF@5K mlt Mss B (Jebkaal) T S V.25 An example of agreement of Mss + Vrs with the OG text (BL) in the Kaige section is 2 Kgs 9:11 LB4=9] 9LB4=9 Mss B LXXL T S V. Those cases in which the witnesses are divided are also as interesting as those of Q/K as in 2 Kgs 14:13: 945=9] 45=9 Q mlt Mss B (gkhem) T S, against LXXL (gcacem autom) V Josephus 2 Chr 25:23 984=5=9. The analysis of the agreements of Mss + Vrs with LXX helps to establish the OG text, whose readings may represent a Hebrew that may also be attested by the Mss + Vrs. In the non-Kaige section there are 46 cases in which B LXXL (commonly OG) = Mss + Vrs represents a reading that is or may be preferable to MT26 against an isolated case in which the agreement of LXXL (¼ 6 B) = Mss + Vrs is preferable: 1 Kgs 6:3. In the Kaige section, on the other hand, there are 40 cases of B = Mss + Vrs readings that are preferable to MT,27 whereas the cases of LXXL (¼ 6 B) = Mss + Vrs are 10.28 Scholars have been reluctant until now to acknowledge the critical value of the Lucianic text. The LXXL readings that represent OG are surely more numerous than previously supposed. Also the Greek readings that may reflect a Hebrew variant preferable to the MT may be more numerous than generally accepted.

3.

Agreement of the Aramaic, Syriac and Vulgate Versions with LXX Readings

There are 109 agreements of the Vrs with B and LXXL without the help of Mss (Table 3, Kaige sections). In 26 cases LXXL presents its own reading that does not agree either with B (Kaige) or with LXXA (hexaplaric). These readings deserve a detailed study since they may represent the OG text and correspond to Hebrew variants also attested by some of the three versions. The proportion of cases in which scholars – taking BHS as a reference – think

25 The Lucianic text preserves here the pre-Kaige or OG reading em Ibkeal (AF@5=5). 26 1 Kgs 3:26; 4:3; 4:3; 5:17; 6:5; 6:7; 7:18; 8:26: 8:26; 8:36; 8:43; 8:44; 8:48; 8:48; 9:4; 9:6; 9:6; 9:26; 11:25; 12:7; 12:21; 12:33; 13:11; 13:11; 13:16; 13:17; 13:28; 13:34; 14:26; 15:9; 15:18; 15:19; 15:23; 15:33; 16:27; 17:6; 17:15; 18:1; 18:4; 18:26; 19:1; 19:2; 19:3; 20:28; 20:33. 27 1 Kgs 1:18; 1:27; 2 Kgs 1:12; 3:11; 7:2; 7:4; 9:4; 9:19; 9:25; 9:25; 10:2; 10:7; 10:15; 10:26; 10:29; 11:1; 11:10; 15:13; 15:34; 16:6; 16:15; 16:19; 18:8; 18:8; 18:10; 18:17; 19:23; 19:33; 20:4; 20:13; 21:6; 21:12; 21:26; 23:11; 24:10; 25:4; 25:6; 25:13; 25:23; 25:27. 28 1 Kgs 2:4; 2 Kgs 10:6; 10:12; 14:13; 15:30; 16:19; 17:27; 19:14; 19:25; 23:17.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate

113

that the Hebrew reading represented by LXX is or may be preferable to MT is significant. There are 11 cases of agreement G = Vrs29 y 5 de LXXL = Vrs.30 As in the two previous sections (1 and 2), the same rules of agreement are found: Vrs = LXXL (OG) ¼ 6 B in the Kaige section; Vrs = B (Kaige text) in the Kaige section and Vrs = BL (OG) in both sections.

4.

Conclusions

The history of the textual transmission of the two scrolls corresponding to 1 and 2 Kings, following the book division attested by OG, may not be exactly the same. The number of coincidences from Mss + Vrs against MT is significantly greater in 2 Kings than in 1 Kings. Further study of other textual phenomena that may attest a different textual history of each book or scroll is needed. The data presented in this paper confirm and, at the same time, correct Wevers’ conclusion according to which “the Hebrew variants are remnants of the Hebrew Vorlage used by the first translators of the O.T., as well as of Hebrew readings in vogue at the time of the later revisers.”31 They confirm the first part of the clause: “the Hebrew variants are remnants of the Hebrew Vorlage used by the first translators of the O.T.”, but correct the second part: “(are remnants of) Hebrew readings in vogue at the time of the later revisers.” Many Hebrew readings witnessed by L in a Kaige section that are present in Mss and Vrs are also remnants of the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint. On the other hand, other Hebrew readings attested to by the Mss and Vrs belong to a proto-Masoretic text reflected in the Kaige recension. Wevers’ work predated the discovery of the Qumran manuscripts and of the Twelve Prophets Scroll of Nahal Hever, and ˙ ˙ therefore, he was not in a position to fully apply the division of the text between Kaige and non-Kaige sections, which is crucial for a correct identification of the OG variants, both Kaige and proto-Lucianic. The medieval manuscripts and the three versions may agree with Kaige readings (LXXB in the Kaige sections), with proto-Lucianic readings (OG in the Kaige sections) and with LXXBL readings (OG in both sections). The task of textual criticism mainly consists of contrasting these three levels and identifying the variant readings that correspond to each of them. The previous analysis of the agreements of Mss + Vrs with LXX thus con-

29 1 Kgs 1:28; 22:30; 2 Kgs 3:24; 9:28; 9:33; 10:15; 14:26; 16:16; 17:34; 18:11; 23:8. In these cases, it is still necessary to determine whether the B reading is OG or Kaige. 30 1 Kgs 1:50; 2:9; 2 Kgs 6:32; 22:4; 23:5. 31 Wevers, “A Study,” 74.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

114

Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano

tributes to discerning the Kaige readings and establishing the OG text, whose readings may represent a Hebrew attested by the Mss + Vrs. In the non-Kaige section, there are at least 43 cases in which the BL (OG) text together with Mss or Mss + Vrs transmits a reading that is generally considered preferable to that of MT: 1 Kgs 4:3 5:17 6:5 6:7 7:18 8:26 8:26 8:36 8:43 8:44 8:48 8:48 9:4 9:6 9:6 9:26 11:25 12:7 12:21 12:33 13:11 13:11 13:16 13:17 13:28 13:34 14:26 15:9 15:18 15:19 15:23 15:33 16:27 17:6 17:15 18:1 18:4 18:26 19:1 19:2 19:3 20:28 20:33

=D5] C5 2 Mss OG 9@6L]=@6L pc Mss Q.; 9=@6L mlt Mss OG T V 5=5E N=58 N9L=K N4] om pc Mss OG TMs @?]@?9 mlt Mss OG Vrs A=DBL8]A=79BF8 mlt Mss OG S =8@4 ] pr 898= mlt Mss OG TfMs S Vmss 2 Chr 6:16 ý=L57] ýL57 Q. mlt Mss OG S 2 Chr 6:16 ý=75F] ý75F pc Mss OG 8N4]8N49 mlt Mss OG S 2 Chr 6:33 95=4] 9=5=4 2 Ms OG Vrs 2 Chr 6:34 L=F8] L=F89 mlt Mss OG V 2 Chr 6:38 N=D5] =N=D5 Q. mlt Mss G Vrs N9MF@] N=MF@9 Ms OG S A4] A49 2 Mss OG S V =NK;] =NK;9 nonn Mss OG N9@4] N@4 pc Mss OG V AL4] A74 2 Mss OG S L57=9] 9L57=9 Q. mlt Mss OG Vrs 945=9] 45=9 Q. mlt Mss OG 75@B] 95@B Q. nonn Mss OG (cf Vrs) LHE=9 9D5 495=9] 9LHE=9 9=D5 945=9 2 Ms OG S Vmss N4] N49 2 Mss G-BA S V ýN4 495@9] om 2 Mss OG 4@] 4@9 mlt Mss OG Vrs L9B;9] L9B;89 nonn Mss OG T S L575] L578 pc Mss OG T S N49] N4 Ms OG 2 Chr 12:9 8798= ý@B] 8798= @F mlt Mss Edd OG TfMs N9LJ94 N49] N9LJ9459 mlt Mss GO T S V C=5] C=59 mlt Mss OG Vrs 2 Chr16:3 @?] om 2 Mss OG S @?] om pc Mss OG LM4] pr @?9 mlt Mss OG S LM59] om Ms OG 4=89 498] 4989 4=8 Q. nonn Mss OG S A=B=] A=B=B pc Mss OG Vrs A=MB;] A=MB; A=MB; nonn Mss OG Vrs 8MF] 9MF Seb nonn Mss OG Vrs @?] om pc Mss OG C9MF=] + =@ mlt Mss OG Vrs 4L=9]4L=9 (wayyira¯’) pc Mss OG S V LB4=9] om pc Mss OG V 9DBB8 9ü@;=9] 9DBB 9ü@;89 QOcc nonn Mss OG Vrs

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate

115

In the Kaige sections there are at least 32 cases in which the BL (OG) = Mss + Vrs reading seems to be preferable to MT. BHS has the indication lege(ndum) cum (l c). The six cases of omission are annotated in BHS with dele(ndum) (dl): 1 Kgs 1:18 8NF9] 8N49 Seb mlt Mss OG Tf Ms S V (BHS l c) 1:27 ý=75F] ý75F Q. mlt Mss OG Vrs (BHS l c) 2 Kgs 1:12 7:2 9:4 9:19 9:25 9:25 10:2 10:7 10:15 10:29 11:1 11:10 15:13 15:34 16:6 16:15 18:8 18:17 19:23 19:33 20:4 20:13 21:6 21:12 21:26 24:10 25:6 25:13 25:23 25:27

A8=@4] 9=@4 2 Mss OG S Arm Aeth (BHS l c) ý@B@] ý@B8 Mss G Vrs OL Aeth (BHS l c) LFD8 LFD8] LFD8 Mss OG S (BHS dl?) A9@M] A9@M8 Seb mlt Mss OG Vrs (BHS l c) L?:] L?9: Ms OG Vrs (BHS l c) N4] om Ms OG Vrs (BHS dl) L=F9] =LF9 Mss OG Vrs (BHS frt l c) 9ü;M=9] A9ü;M=9 pc Mss OG S (BHS l c) N4] om pc Mss OG T V (BHS dl?) @4 N=5] @4 N=55 Mss Seb OG Vrs 8N4L9] 8N4L Q. Mss OG Vrs (BHS l c) N=D;8] pl. Mss OG S V 2 Chr 23:9 (BHS l c) 8=:F@] 8=L:F@ mlt Mss OG TfMs V (BHS l c) 8MF] om pc Mss OG S (BHS prb dl) N9@=4B] N@ – pc Mss OG Vrs (BHS l c) IL48 AF] AF8 pc Mss OG (BHS l c) N49] 7F9 Ms OG (jai eyr) (BHS l c) 945=9 9@F=9] om pc Mss OG S V (BHS dl) 5?L5] 5L5 Q. mlt Mss OG Vrs Isa 37:24 (BHS l c) 45=] 45 pc Mss OG Vrs Isa 37:34 (BHS l c) L=F8] LJ; Q. mlt Mss OG (em tg aukg) Vrs (BHS l c) FBM=9] ;BM=9 pc Mss OG S V Isa 39:2 (BHS l c) E=F?8@] 9E – mlt Mss OG (paqoqcisai autom) TfMss S V (BHS l c) 9=FBM] 8FBM Q. nonn Mss G (B ajouomtor; L + auta) Vrs (BHS l c) L5K=9] 9L5K=9mlt Mss OG (jai ehaxam autom) Vrs (BHS l c) 9=75F] om pc Mss OG S (BHS dl) 9L57=9] L57=9mlt Mss OG Tf S Jer 52 (BHS l c) 898= N=5] 898= N=55 nonn Mss OG (em oijy juqiou) Vrs (BHS l c) A=MD489] A8=MD49 2 Mss OG (jai oi amdqer autym) Tf S V Jer 40:7 (BHS l c) 8798= ý@B] + 9N4 4J=9 pc Mss OG (jai engcacgm autom) T S Jer 52:31 (BHS l c)

Also in the Kaige section, L (¼ 6 B) = Mss + Vrs preserves or may preserve a preLucianic or OG reading in twenty-eight instances that may be a preferable or alternative reading to MT: 1 Kgs 1:3 @956] om Ms L (OG) (B oqiou) 1:42 45] om Ms L (OG) (B eisgkhem) 1:47 ý=8@4] A=8@4 Q. mlt Mss G-L (B o heor) V; 898= L (OG) (juqior) T S VMs (BHS l c K S – Þka¯) 1:52 9NLFMB] 9M4L NLFMB Ms L (tgr jevakgr autou hqin; B tym tqiwym autou) T S

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

116 2:5

Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano

LM4] LM49 pc Mss L (OG) (jai a; B osa) S

2 Kgs 2:15 2:17 2:21 3:27 7:6 7:9 7:12 7:12 9:32 10:1 10:6 10:12 10:14 10:19 10:25 10:26 14:13

984L=9] 94L=9 pc Mss L (OG) (jai eidom; B + autom) S 984JB] 94JB Mss L (OG) (euqom; B + autom) V 4@] 4@9 Mss L (OG) (jai ouj; B ouj) T S Vmss Arm IL4@] AJL4@ Mss L (OG) (cgm autym; B cgm) S V Arm 9=;4] 98FL Mss L (OG) (pkgsiom; B adekvom) Tf Mss S A9=8] A9=89 Mss L (jai g gleqa; B g gleqa) (V) 8@=@] om Ms L (B mujtor) 4D-] om Mss L (apacceky; B amacceky dg) S V 9=DH] 9=D=F 2 Mss L (OG) (tour ovhaklour; B to pqosypom) SW @4FL:=] Ms G-L 9LBM; L (V) tgr pokeyr (L=F8) (BHS l L=F8) =MD4] om Mss L (OG) (B amdqym) S V (BHS dl?) 498] 4989 Ms L (jai autor; B autor) S V (BHS l c) A8B M=4] M=4 A8B Mss L (enautym oudema; B oudema en autym) T S V @?] -9 Mss L (jai pamtar) TfMss S V L=F] om Ms L (OG) (eyr tou maou; B eyr pokeyr) N95JB] N5JB Mss OG (L stgkgm, BA stokgm) Vrs Arm 945=9]45=9 Q. mlt Mss G-L (Kaige) (gkhem) T S; 984=5=9 L (OG) (gcacem autom) V 2 Chr 25:23 Jos 14:13 LFM5]LFMB pc Mss L (OG) (apo tgr pukgr; B em tg pukg) T S V 2 Chr 25:23 (BHS l c) 15:30 8=:F C5 AL9=@ A=LMF NDM5] om Ms L (OG) (em etei eijosty Iyahal uiy Awar) (BHS frt dl) 17:24 A=9LHE9] A=9LHEB9 QOr pc Mss L (apo Sepvaqeil; B Sepqaqouaim) T S VArm 21:18 9N=5 C65] om Ms L (B tou oijou autou em jgpy); Aeth om autou em jgpy 21:22 898=] om 2 Mss L (B juqiom) 23:17 @4 N=5] @4 N=55 pc Mss L (em Baihgk; B Baihgk), @4 N=55 T, S (BHS l c).

BHS does not take a stand on these readings, except for 2 Kgs 10:11; 10:12; 14:13; 17:27 and 23:17, where it accepts the Lucianic reading. It admits the omissions of 10:6 and 15:30 with some doubts, but does not judge other short Lucianic readings in 1:42; 7:12 (2x); 10:25 and 21:18. Scholars have been reluctant to acknowledge the critical value of L. The L readings agreeing with Mss + Vrs represent the OG text and reflect a Hebrew reading preferable or alternate to MT in many more instances than is generally supposed. Finally, the proportion and value of the agreements of the three versions (T S V) with LXX readings in the Kaige sections are also very significant (Table 3). BHS gives preference to 19 Hebrew readings of the LXX agreeing with T S V: - BL = Vrs: 1 Kgs 1:28; 22:30; 2 Kgs 1:13; 3:24; 9:28; 9:33; 10:15; 14:26; 16:16; 17:34; 18:11; 23:8 - L (¼ 6 B) = Vrs: 1 Kgs 1:50; 2:9; 2 Kgs 1:13; 6:32; 7:3; 22:4; 23:5. However, the L (¼ 6 B) readings that agree with T S V and preserve the OG text are certainly more numerous, as for example in 13:6 85] A85, autg B Aeth] autair A L rell Arm Copt SyrH T S V, and in 18:21 8NF] om, mum B] om L Arm OL S Isa 36:6. Two facts should therefore be taken into account: 1) the agreements of L with

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate

117

Mss and Vrs (and also with the secondary versions, Aeth OL Arm) are more numerous in the Kaige sections than in the non-Kaige sections; and 2) these readings preserve pre-Lucianic or OG readings that go back to a Hebrew Vorlage attested by Vrs and quite often preferable or an alternative to the corresponding MT readings. The two books of Kings were copied in two scrolls following the book division attested by L (OG). The text of each scroll may have had an independent history as shown by the fact that the agreements of Mss + Vrs against MT are much more numerous in 2 Kings (Kaige in LXX) than in 1 Kings (non-Kaige). Further research in this direction is needed. The history of the biblical text and of its versions and subsequent recensions shows that Jewish textual traditions did not cease to influence Christian ones at least until Jerome’s period.32 Moreover, the traditions of Jewish exegesis continued to pass into Christian exegesis for three or more centuries. Thus, the history of the Hebrew text, the textual history of the Septuagint and of its daughter versions and the history of the exegesis of the biblical books are intimately connected. When referring to the books of Kings, textual criticism of the LXX and textual criticism of the Hebrew text cannot be done independently. Both are so closely linked that it may be asked whether a critical edition of LXX should incorporate Hebrew variants – attested in Qumran and medieval manuscripts or reflected by the Aramaic, Syriac and Vulgate versions – that agree with Kaige or with OG readings.

32 Daniel Boyarin documents ancient sources according to which Christian and Jewish religious practice may, in many places, have overlapped; D. Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

TABLE 1 1 Kings (cc) 2:14 2:16 2:23 2:26 2:26 2:30 2:38 3:7 3:9 3:10 3:12 3:18 3:26 4:1 4:3 4:3 4:5 4:7 5:2 5:4 5:7 5:14 5:17 5:17 5:21 5:27 5:28 6:2 6:3 6:5

+ 9@ + 8DüK 898= ý=7M] ý7M =D74] om 4@] 9@ LM4?] 4LM 4@] 4@9 FBM] FBM@ =D74] 898= ý=L5E?] ýL57? C=4] C=49 =;8] om ý@B8] om =D5] C5 üHM98=] üHM98=9 795:9] L9?:9 7;4] 7;48 Q A9=@] A9=5 L8D8 L5F =?@B @?5 8:F 7F9 ;EHNB] om 8B@M] om @?B] @? 8B;@B8 ] N9B;@B8 9@6L] =@6L pc Mss Q A9=8] om 8B@M] om A=DM] A=DM9 A=LMF9 ] 8B4 A=LMF9 LMF] LMF9 5=5E N=58 N9L=K N4] om

NON-KAIGE SECTIONS 2 Mss pc Mss Ms mlt Mss pc Mss nonn Mss Ms pc Mss Ms mlt Mss mlt Mss Edd mlt Mss 2 Mss Ms 2 Mss 2 Mss pc Mss nonn Mss Ms pc Mss 2 Mss Ms Ms 9=@6L mlt Mss Ms 2 Mss mlt Mss pc Mss nonn Mss pc Mss

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

OG

OG G G

G G OG G G G G

G71 G G G G G G G G OG ? OG G44 OG G

G

T LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

TMs

T

T

MSS + VERSIONS

S S S

S

S SW

S

S S

S (S) S S

S

V

V V

V

V

(V)

V Vrs

118 Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano

6:7 6:8 6:15 6:16 6:27 6:34 6:38 7:18 7:29 7:36 7:37 7:38 7:40 7:48 8:1 8:15 8:26 8:26 8:32 8:36 8:38 8:43 8:44 8:47 8:48 8:48 8:58 8:60 8:65 9:2 9:4 9:5

@?] @?9 @F] @4 7F] 7F9 7F] 7F9 9MLH=9] MLH=9 A=F@K] A=F@J 8DM59] 8DM5 A=DBL8] A=79BF8 LK5] LK59 8=NL6EB9] 8=NL6EB Q. 87B] 87B9 7;48 L9=?8 8B45 F5L4] om N9L=?8] N9L=E8 N=5] N=55 =DK:] pr @? N4] @4 =8@4] pr 898= ý=L57] ýL57 Q A=BM8] pr CB ý=75F] ý75F ? @?] @?9 8N4] 8N49 95=4] 9=5=4 9D=9F89] 9D=9F8 L=F8] L=F89 N=D5] =N=D5 Q. 9D55@] 9D=55@ C=4] C=49 N=F5] A9=5 9=@4] om N9MF@] N=MF@9 @F] @4

mlt Mss mlt Mss mlt Mss mlt Mss 2 Mss Ms Ms mlt Mss Ms mlt Mss pc Mss pc Mss mlt Mss nonn Mss mlt Mss pc Mss mlt Mss mlt Mss Ms pc Mss pc Mss mlt Mss 2 Ms 2 Ms mlt Mss mlt Mss mlt Mss mlt Mss Ms 2 Mss Ms mlt Mss

G G G G G G G G G G G OG G G G G G G G G G44.106 G G G OG G G G G OG G G Tf

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

S

S S

S S

TMs

T

S S S

V V

V V

V

V V V V Vmss

S

TfMs

V

S

S

V

V

S S

TMs

TMs TMs

S S S S

Vrs

Chr Vrs Chr Chr Chr Vrs

Chr Chr

Vrs

Vrs

Vrs

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate

119

9:6 9:6 9:7 9:11 9:15 9:18 9:23 9:26 10:6 10:8 10:17 10:25 11:10 11:14 11:20 11:22 11:25 11:27 11:33 12:1 12:7 12:12 12:15 12:15 12:16 12:20 12:20 12:21 12:22 12:27 12:27 12:32

A4] A49 =NK;] =NK;9 N=58] + 8:8 @?@] @?59 9N=5] ý@B8 N=5 LBN] LB7N Q 8@4] 8@49 N9@4] N@4 ý=L57] ýL57 =LM4] =LM49 ý@B8] om @?9 GE?] om 89J] 989J 778] L78 N=5] =D5 4@] 4@9 AL4] A74 L6E] L6E9 =8@4] N5F9N 45] 945 L57=9] 9L57=9 Q 95=9] 945F9 898=] om @4] @F @4LM=] AF8 @?] om 4@] 4@9 945=9] 45=9 Q. A=8@48] 898= =D6L89] om 8798= ý@B AF5;L @4 95M9] C?] LM4

2 Mss nonn Mss Ms 2 Mss Ms mlt Mss pc Mss pc Mss Ms nonn Mss Ms Ms 2 Mss pc Mss pc Mss mlt Mss 2 Mss Ms pc Mss nonn Mss Seb mlt Mss 2 Mss 2 Mss Ms Ms 2 Ms pc Mss mlt Mss pc Mss pc Mss pc Mss Ms

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

OG G

G G G G

OG G G G G G G G-ANmin G jai toir eidykoir (L sg) OG G OG OG G

G G G

G G G G G

LXXL ?

LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

T

T

TMs

T

S

S

V

V

V

V

S S S

V V

V

V V V

V

S S

S

S

Vrs Vrs

Chr Vrs

2 Chr 8:4

Vrs

120 Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano

13:17 13:22 13:23 13:28 13:28 13:34 14:26 14:31 15:2 15:4 15:9 15:18 15:18 15:19 15:23 15:29 15:33 16:7 16:13 16:19 16:27 16:34 17:6 17:12 17:15 17:24

12:33 13:11 13:11 13:16 13:17

75@B] 95@B Q LHE=9 9D5 495=9] 9LHE=9 9=D5 945=9 N4] N49 ýN4 495@9] om L575 =@4 L57] L575 =N94 89J C? =@4 898= L57 4@] 4@9 A9KB5] + 8:8 9N9NM] +A=B L9B;9] L9B;89 4@] 4@9 L575] L578 N49] N4 A=54] 8=54 M@M] M@M9 9=8@4] om 8798= ý@B] 8798= @F N9LJ94 N49] N9LJ9459 778] L78 C=5] C=59 @?] om 4@] 4@9 @?] om @F9] @F 94=ü;8] 4=ü;8 9N4ü;] 9=N4ü; Q LM4] pr @?9 5=6M59] 596M59 Q LM59] om A=DM] om 4=89 498] 4989 4=8 Q 8:] om

nonn Mss 2 Ms 2 Mss 2 Mss Ms Ms mlt Mss Ms Ms nonn Mss pc Mss pc Mss Ms pc Mss Ms Ms mlt Mss Edd mlt Mss pc Mss mlt Mss 2 Mss Ms pc Mss 3 Mss 2 Mss mlt Mss mlt Mss nonn Mss Ms pc Mss nonn Mss 2 Mss G G G G G G G G G OG G G-O G G G G OG G-B G G G G OG G-N min OG OG

G G G-BA OG G

S

TfMs TMs

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

S S

S

S

S

S

T

TfMs T

S S

T

S S

V

V

Vmss V

Vrs

Vrs

Vrs Chr

Chr

Vrs

(cf Vrs)

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate

121

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

21:19 21:24

18:1 18:4 18:12 18:12 18:17 18:20 18:21 18:26 18:31 18:31 18:36 18:39 19:1 19:2 19:3 19:9 19:19 20:12 20:13 20:15 20:16 20:26 20:28 20:28 20:31 20:31 20:33 20:33 20:42

A=B=] A=B=B A=MB;] A=MB; A=MB; ý4JB= 4@9] =LFDB] 9=LFDB 9=@4] 98=@4 @4 A=4=5D8] pr @? 9N94] om 8MF] 9MF Seb =D5] om 5KF=] @4LM= K;J=] K;J=9 498] om @?] om C9MF=] + =@ 4L=9] 4L=9 (wayyira’) 9@] om 9=@4] 9=@F A=?@B89] A=?@B8 @?9 @?] om @?] om 94J=9] 4J=9 AF] @F LB4=9] om LB4=9] om =?] om 9DM4L5] 9D=M4L5 9DBB8 9ü@;=9] 9DBB 9ü@;89 QOcc 98@F=9] + 9=@4 7=B] =7=B ý7=B LB4@] om NB89] +9@ pc Mss mlt Mss

pc Mss nonn Mss Ms pc Mss 2 Mss pc Mss 2 Mss nonn Mss pc Mss pc Mss Ms 2 Mss pc Mss mlt Mss pc Mss pc Mss pc Mss Ms Ms Ms Ms pc Mss Ms pc Mss pc Mss mlt Mss nonn Mss G Ms Ms G

G G-BL GBL

G G OG G G G OG G G OG G OG OG G G G G G G-B OG G G GA G G G

LXXL

TMs

TMs

S S

S

S S

S

S

S

S

V

V V V

V

V

V

Syh

Vrs

Vrs

Vrs

Vrs

Vrs Vrs

122 Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

2 Kings (cd) 1:6 AM] om 1:11 @F=9 CF=9] om

1 Kings (cd) 22:27 =45] 22:36 @4 M=49] @49

TABLE 2 KAIGE SECTIONS 1 Kings (bc) 1:3 @956] om 1:8 AF] =L;4 1:9 @?@9] @? N49 1:14 8D8] 8D89 1:16 LB4=9] + 8@ 1:18 8NF9] 8N49 Seb 1:23 LB4@] om 1:27 ý=75F] ý75F Q. 1:35 8798= @F9] 1:38 C=;6 @F] C=;6 @4 1:42 45] om 1:45 9;MB=9] ;MB=9 1:47 ý=8@4] A=8@4 Q. 898= 1:51 A9=?] A9=8 1:52 9NLFMB] 9M4L 4LFMB 2:3 9=N9JB] 9=N9JB9 2:4 LB4@] om 2:5 LM4] LM49 2:5 8B;@B =B7 CN=9 A9@M5] om GOL G-L

G OG G OG G (eir)

G G G

Ms Mss

Ms

G GB

G G

2 Mss G Ms mmlt Mss G Ms pc Mss pc Mss B

Ms Ms pc Mss mlt Mss mlt Mss mlt Mss 2 Mss mlt Mss Ms pc mss Ms Ms mlt Mss

LXXL (LXXA)

LXXL LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

MSS + VERSIONS

S

S S T S TMss S

T

Tf Ms S Tf Ms S Tf Ms S

S

V

V V

V V

V V Ms V

V V V V

Chr

Vrs

Vrs

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate

123

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

9:25 9:32

ý@B@] ý@B8 Mss 8=;D] 8=;D9 Mss @9K] @9K9 Mss 9=;4] 98FL Mss A9=8] A9=89 Mss 4LK=9] 94LK=9 Mss 8@=@] om Ms 4D-] om Mss @4LM= C9B8 @?? AD8 85 9L4MD LM4] omMss L57?] L578 Mss LFD8 LFD8] LFD8 Mss LB4=9] 9LB4=9 Seb mlt Mss A9@M] A9@M8 Seb mlt Mss L?:] L?9: Ms L?9:] + =? =D4 N4] om Ms 9=DH] 9=D=F 2 Mss

7:2 7:4 7:6 7:6 7:9 7:11 7:12 7:12 7:13 7:19 9:4 9:11 9:19 9:25

2 Mss pc Mss pc Mss Mss Mss 2 Mss Mss Mss Mss Mss Ms Mss Ms Mss

A8=@4] 9=@4 A=8@48] om 984L=9] 94L=9 984JB B] 94JB 4@ B] 4@9 9N94B] 9N4B üHM98=9] + 8798= ý@B IL4@] AJL4@ 9LB4=9] om 84L=9] 984L=9 om] ý=@4 8:] om 95 ILH=9] om ;KH 898=] + 4D-

1:12 1:12 2:15 2:17 2:21 3:11 3:12 3:27 5:13 5:21 5:22 5:22 5:23 6:20

G

OG OG OG OG OG OG

OG

OG OG B amoinom dg Juqie = 898= 4D ;KH T L Juqie diamoinom = MT G G G

B OG

B

G G

S

S S S

S

SW

LXXL

V

S S S

T

V V

(V)

Vrs

Vrs Vrs Vrs

Vrs

Vrs

Vrs

Vrs

V mssA V

V Vmss Arm Vrs V V Arm V

Vmss

S S

Tf MssS

TMss

T

S

LXXL

LXXL LXXL

LXXL LXXL

LXXL LXXL

LXXL LXXL LXXL

S

124 Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano

L=F9] =LF9 N=DM] =DM =MD4] om 9ü;M=9] A9ü;M=9 498] 4989 A==; A=MHN=9]j om A8B M=4] M=4 A8B N4] om ] -9 @?] -9 4@9] 4@ 8H] om L=F] om N95JB] N5JB @F58 N=5 N4 9JN=9] om A9=8 7F] + 8:8 N4] + N=5 @4 N=5] @4 N=55 @;D @F] @;D NH: @F 8N4L9] 8N4L Q. N=D;8] pl. AF8] AF89 =7KH] =7KH9 NB8] NB9= N4] N49 945=9] 45=9

@?@9] @?@ 9=8=] 8=8= + 898= ;@B8] ;@B Q. 8B@9] 8B@

10:2 10:6 10:6 10:7 10:12 10:14 10:14 10:15 10:18 10:18 10:21 10:23 10:25 10:26 10:27 10:27 10:28 10:29 10:33 11:1 11:10 11:13 11:15 11:15 11:18 11:19

12:13 12:17 13:23 14:7 14:10

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

pc Mss pc Mss Ms nonn Mss 2 Mss

Mss Mss Mss pc Mss Ms Mss Mss pc Mss Mss Mss Mss Mss Ms Mss Mss Mss 2 Mss Mss Seb Mss Mss Mss Ms 2 Mss 2 Mss pc Mss Ms -BA

G G G G G-BL

G G G G

G G G G

G OG G

G OG

G G

OG

OG

G G

LXXL (jai eisgvavom autom)

LXXL ? LXXL ?

LXXL

LXXL

LXXL LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

TfMss

S S

S

Tmss S

T

V

V V

V

V

S V S S V SMW T S V T V V TfMss S V TfMss V V

Vrs 2 Chr 2 Chr

Vrs 2 Chr

Vrs

Vrs

A

Vrs

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate

125

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

16:14 16:15 16:17 16:19 17:8 17:13

15:13 15:14 15:16 15:18 15.25 15:29 15:30 15:34 15:36 15:38 15:38 16:6 16:10 16:11

14:13 14:14 14:14 14:15 14:21 14:23 15:10

14:13

;5:B8] ;5:B 48 AFIL] AF8 N49] N4 Q. :;4] + @?9 @4LM= =?@B9] om 94=5D] 9=4=5D

945=9] 45=9 Q. 984=5=9 LFM5] LFMB @?] om N=5] N=55 LM49] LM4 8=L:F] + 9D5 @4LM=] @4LM= @F AF @5K] AF@5K AF@5=5 8=:F@] 8=L:F@ C9LBM5] om N4] N49 @FB] @?B 56L4] 56L48 8@=@68 N49] + N49 A=LMF NDM5] om 8MF] om AN=9] + @?9 9=N54 AF L5K=9] om 9=54] om N9@=4B] N@ KMB97] KMB7 7F C8?8 8=L94 8MF C?] om KMB7B :;4 ý@B8 495 pc Mss pc Mss pc Mss mlt Mss mlt Mss Ms Ms

mlt Mss Ms nonn Mss pcMss pc Mss pc Mss Ms pc Mss mlt Mss pc Mss 2 Mss pc Mss nonn Mss

pc Mss Ms nonn Mss Ms Ms mlt Mss mlt Mss

mlt Mss

GNmin G

OG G

OG

G cf G

G G GANmin

G G-L G G121.426

G

G B

G G G

G-L

S

S

S

S

T

T S TfMs S LXXL

S

S

TMs Tf S

TMs

TfMs TMs TfMs S Tf

TfMs T S

T

T

cf LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

LXX

L

LXXL

LXXL

LXXL LXXL

V

V

V

V

V

V V

Vrs

Vrs

A

2 Chr Jos 2 Chr Syh sub* 2 Chr 25:24

126 Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano

=N9K;] =N9K;9 A6] A69 47=9] ;7=9 Q L57] + 898= A=9LHE9] A=9LHEB9 QOr AN=@68] A=N N=55] =N55 L S V 8@4] =8@4 Q 8@4 K. 8LM48] N9L 4@] 4@9 N49] 7F9 ? 8=@956] 8@956 ? 7F] 7F9 87?@=9] 87?@=9 -ah N4] N49 945=9 9@F=9] om 8NF] 8NF9 8NF] 8NF9 9DBF] 9D=@4 L57] =L57 97=B] =7=B

8=4] 8=49 4=5D8] tr post I9B4 @?] om A4LK=9] 984 LB4=9] LB4@ 9;@M] ;@M 5?L5] 5L5 Q. 8NF] 8NF9 ?

18:4 18:6 18:8 18:8 18:8 18:10 18:14 18:17 18:20 18:25 18:26 18:28 18:29

18:34 19:2 19:4 19:14 19:15 19:16 19:23 19:25

17:13 17:19 17:21 17:23 17:24 17:27 17:29 17:31

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Ms pc Mss mlt Mss Ms G G

G

-BA

G GO G G-B

G

G G71 G G G G-L

G-BL

mlt Mss Ms mlt Mss Ms 2 Mss pc Mss pc Mss Ms pc Mss 2 Mss mlt Mss mlt Mss Ms mlt Mss Or pc Mss Ms mlt Mss

G G G G

mlt Mss pc Mss mlt Mss Ms pc Mss Ms

LXXL

LXXL LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

(LXXL =MT, pl) LXXL

LXXL

LXXL LXXL

S

S

TfMss S

TMss S

TMs T S

TfMs S S Tf S S Tf TfMs S

TMs S T TMs S Tf S

T TfMs

T

S S S S

V

V V

V V

V

V V

V V

V

V

V

Isa Isa Isa 37:14 Isa Isa 37:15 Vrs Isa

A Isa 36:10 Isa Isa

s’

Arm

Vrs

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate

127

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

ý@BL749] ‘4 5E=9] + 98=K:; 9=DH N4] om L=F8] LJ; Q. N4] om ý74L5] ý7(4)LB 98=K:;] + =;=9 FBM=9] ;BM=9 9LB4] +ý@ 945] + =@4 898=] +N945J A=45] + 898= A4D L57] + LM4 E=F?8@] 9E 9=FBM] 8FBM Q. 9N=5 C65] om 898=] om 8MF LM4] 8MF LM4 @?9 mlt Mss L5K=9] 9L5K=9 8DBM C5] + 8LMF 4@9] 4@ 8DN=9] 98DN=9 Q. 98DN= -noh K. CN=9 weyuttan LM4] om N=58 N4] N=58 K75 N4 @F] @4 N=55] 898= N=55 9D=@F] 9=@F @?5] 5

19:37 20:2 20:2 20:4 20:11 20:12 20:12 20:13 20:14 20:14 20:16 20:17 20:17 21:6 21:12 21:18 21:22 21:25 21:26 22:1 22:2 22:5

22:5 22:6 22:8 22:9 22:13 22:17

45=] 45

19:33

2 Mss nonn Mss mlt Mss pc Mss Ms Ms

mlt Mss Ms pc Mss mlt Mss

2 Mss mlt Mss Ms mlt Mss pc Mss pc Mss Ms pc Mss Ms mlt Mss 2 Mss 2 Mss Ms mlt Mss nonn Mss Ms 2 Mss

pc Mss

G-L

G G cf G G

-Bmin

G G44.71 G G

G G121 G-BO G-L G G

G

G GBA G cf G G

G

cf LXXL (em auty)

LXXL

LXXL LXXL LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

V

TfMss S

TMs

V

S

S

S

Vmss

Tf S S S S TMss S

V

(V)

V

V

V

S TMs S

Vrs

Vrs

Isa 39:3 Isa 39:5

Isa 39:2

Isa 38:2 Syhtxt Vrs

Vrs Isa 37:34

128 Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano

25:4 25:4 25:6 25:8 25:12 25:13 25:13 25:20 25:23 25:26 25:27

24:10 24:12 25:4

22:20 23:2 23:3 23:4 23:5 23:6 23:8 23:8 23:10 23:11 23:17 23:21 23:24 23:31 23:33 24:4

@F] @4 @?9] @? LBM@9] LBM@ AHLM=9] A9H 95EB9] 95EB@9 L5K] =L5K 4Bü=9] 94Bü=9 7F] 7F9 =65] C5 Q. 95B] 95B mebo’ @4 N=5] @4 N=55 8:8] N4:B 898= N=5] 898= N=55 @ü9B;] @ü=B; ý@B5] ý@BB Q. ýHM] + 8MDB + Iyajil 9=75F] om ý@B @F] ý@B @4 8B;@B8] + 94J= + 9;L5=9 8@=@8] 8@=@ ý@=9] 9?@=9 9L57=9] L57=9 8F5M5] 8FMN5 L=4M8] + C74L:95D 898= N=5] 898= N=55 A=7M?] A=7M?8 @F] @4 A=MD489] A8=MD49 A=7M?] A=7M?8 8798= ý@B] + 9N4 4J=9 pc Mss pc Mss 2 Mss pc Mss 2 Mss pc Mss mlt Mss 2 Mss pc Mss nonn Mss pc Mss mlt Mss 2 Mss nonn Mss pc Mss

nonn Mss Ms Mss Ms nonn Mss Ms Ms mlt Mss mlt Mss pc Mss pc Mss 2 Mss nonn Mss mlt Mss nonn Mss Ms

G75 G G G G G G

G G-BO56 G

G

G

G cf G G G G243=i

GO G G G

G

cf G B B

LXX

L

LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

V V

S S

Tf

Tf T

Tf

S S S S S

TMs

S S

V

V

V

V TfMss (S) (V) V T V

T

LXXL

S

S TMs S T S S TfMss S

LXXL

TMs

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Jer Jer 40:7 Jer 41:8 Jer

Jer 52 Vrs

Jer 52 Jer 52 Jer

2 Chr 36:5

Vrs Vrs

Cairo 2 Chr

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate

129

2 Kings (cd) 1:2 =@;B] ==@;B 1:9 @F=9] 9@F=9 1:9 8D89] 4989 1:13 A=M@M] =M@M 1:13 @F=9] om 1:17 AL98=] + 9=;4 2:4 9@] om 2:14 898=] om 3:3 8DBB B Aeth] A=8DBB

1 Kings (cd) 22:15 ý@D8] ý@48 22:20 54;4] + @4LM= ý@B 22:26 ;K] 9;K 22:26 985=M89] 985=M89 (pl.) 22:30 459 MH;N8] 4549 MH;N4 G 22:38 GüM=9] 9HüM=9 22:44 9LE] L=E8

TABLE 3 KAIGE SECTION (cd) Q. 1 Kings (bc) 1:2 =D7M@] suff pl 1:15 ý@B8 N4] 9N4 1:28 ý@B8 =DH@] 9=DH@ 1:34 ;MB9] 9;MB=9 1:50 ý@=9] + 898= @84 @4 (2:28) 1:53 987L=9] sg 2:4 9L57] 9=L57 2:4 A?L7] A8=?L7 2:9 8NF9] 8N49 LXXL LXXL LXXL

LXXL

VERSIONS LXXL LXXA

LXXL LXXL om B] LXXL (rell) B LXXL LXXL LXXA h’ B LXXL BOG LXXL LXXL LXXA

G

G G

G G G G

OG

G-B G426 OG GBA

G

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

T

(T) T?

T

T

T

Tf

T

T

S

S S

S S S

S

S S S

S S S

S

(S)

S

V V V V L V

V

V V

V

VMss V V VMss V

V (V) (V)

V

Arm Arm

2 Chr 18:19 2 Chr 18:25 2 Chr

130 Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano

9:33 10:4 10:6 10:10 10:13 10:15 10:16

6:26 6:30 6:32 7:3 7:7 7:10 8:3 8:5 9:21 9:21 9:25 9:27 9:28

3:7 3:10 3:12 3:24 4:7 4:10 5:13 5:26 6:20 6:21

ý@=9 B] AN94 B] 9DN94 97L=9] 7L=9 85 95=9] 45 945=9 ==;N] 9=;N L=K] om om] A4 N;K@ NF8] N;K@ 8NF9 8D89] AD89 8?4 8?48] 8?4 8?88 8?48 8F=M98] =D8D89] om ALü5] ALü59 8D8] A49 8D;B8] 8D;B5 LFM sho‘er] LFM sha‘ar 87M] N97M 87M] N97M LE4] 9LE4 LE4=9] 9LE4=9 L?:] + =? =D4 98?8]98?=9 9894=5=9 85?LB8 @F 9=75F] + 8DEBL=9] 89EBL=9 74B 74B] 74B 9459] 94=589 L57B] =L57B 4JB 498=9] 4JB=9 M=] + LB4=9 95?L=9] 5?L=9

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

G G

G B G

G OG

B]

B G G G

OG

G G B

OG G G

om

LXX LXXL

L

LXXL

LXXL LXXL LXXA LXXL

LXXL LXXL LXXL LXXL

LXXL LXXL

LXXL LXXL

Tmss

T LXXA T

T T L

T

S S

S S

(S) S S

S

S S S

S S

S S

S

V (V) V V

V

Vmss (V)

V V V V V V V V V

V V V V V V V V

Vrs

Arm

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate

131

13:6 13:7 13:21 13:23 14:4 14:6 14:6 14:26 14:28 15:13 15:16 16:16 16:18 17:13 17:27 17:29 17:32 17:34 17:38 18:4 18:7 18:11 18:21 18:22 18:23 19:14 19:21

11:2 11:7 12:13 13:5

9LNE=9] L=NE=9 9LBM9] =LBM9 8K:;@] -qoh 94J=9] 4J=9 A4J=9 85] suff pl L=4M8] L4MD M=48] om K;J=] K;J=9 9LE] L=E8 9NB9=] 9N9B= 94ü;5] pl 8LB] LB8 LM4] LM49 A9@M] A9@M9 ý=9] + suff 3 f sg 89J] 989J 9D5] sg A?=@4] A8=@4 95M=9 9?@=9] 5M=9 ý@=9 5N=5] =N55 5N=5] =N55 A=üHMB?] AüHMB? NL?=] NL? NL?9] pl @?5] @?59 A;D=9] – D=9 (wayyannihe¯m) ˙ 8NF] om C9LB4N] sg 5LFN8] pl A=LHE8] sg M4L] 8M4L

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

B 426.121

G G

B

cf G G

G G-L G G G

G-L G

OG G G

G-B

B

G

LXXL

LXXL

LXXL

LXXL LXXL LXXL

LXXL

T

LXXL jai engcacem autour LXXL

TMss

T

T

TfMss

TfMs

(T)

LXXL LXXL LXXL + autom

S

S S S

S S

S S S S S S S S S S

S (S)

S

(S) S (S)

V

V

V V V V V

V

V

VMss (V) Vrs 2 Chr

V

(V)

(V)

Isa 37:22

Vrs OL Isa 36:6 Isa 36:7 Isa 36:8

Vrs

2 Chr

132 Julio Trebolle and Pablo Torijano

23:7 23:8

19:22 19:25 20:7 20:9 20:9 21:3 21:16 22:4 23:4 23:5

@9K] + suff 2 sg 8=NLJ=9] ‘J= 9;K] 9;K=9 ý@] om ý@8] ý@=8 8LM4] pl 9N4ü;B] 9=N4ü;B AN=9] ýN=9 N9B7M5] LüK=9] 9LüK= LüK@ =N5] sg 8BM] AM

G G

G-L

G G OG G G T (hjhk)

TMss

LXXL T LXXL em ty elpuqisly elpuqislor = C9H7M 1 Kgs 8:37 T T LXXL L Tf

LXXL V V V

VMss V

S

V

V S bnhl’ (V) ˙

S

S S S

Vrs

Vrs (v. 9)

Isa 37:26

The Behavior of the Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts and the Vulgate

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

133

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

II. The Masorah and other Approaches to study the Text of the Hebrew Bible

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Nathan R. Jastram Concordia University Wisconsin, USA

The Severus Scroll and Rabbi Meir’s Torah

Flavius Josephus speaks of a scroll that was taken from Jerusalem to Rome by Titus as part of the spoils of war when he conquered Jerusalem in 70 CE: “As the last of all the spoils [taken from the temple of Jerusalem] was carried the Law of the Jews” (Josephus, War, 7.5.5). R. Moshe Ha-Darshan speaks of a scroll known to R. Meir (RM) that was given by Severus to a synagogue in Rome: In the book of R. Meir is written: “And he lent me as a father;” as it is said: “One who lends to his neighbor.” This is one of the words which were written in the Law that was removed from Jerusalem in the captivity and taken to Rome. It was stored away in the synagogue of Severus.1

The two accounts of a scroll being removed from Jerusalem as part of the spoils of war have sparked speculation that the same scroll was being described. This is the conclusion that Abraham Epstein reached when he first published the list of its variants recorded in the Midrash Bereshit Rabbati (MBR); he further speculated that the “Severus Scroll” (Sev) may have been the oldest and most valuable of all the scrolls that came to Titus’s attention.2 The textual basis of Epstein’s source was published by Chanoch Albeck in 1940.3 Since Epstein’s initial publication of the list of Severus Scroll variants, the most important advances in this field have been the discovery of three other lists of Severus Scroll variants, found in two biblical manuscripts. Abraham A. Harkavy published a list found on folio 146 of a biblical manuscript (Ms Sassoon 368) that was owned by the Farh. i family from Damascus (D), while Adolph Neubauer published a list of variants in a biblical manuscript (Ms Hebreu 31) in

1 Midrash Bereshit Rabbati at Gen 45:8. 2 A. Epstein, “Ein von Titus nach Rom gebrachter Pentateuch-Codex und seine Varianten,” MGWJ 34:8 (1885), 337 – 351, esp. 338. 3 C. Albeck, Midrasˇ Beresˇit Rabbati ex libro R. Mosis Haddarsˇan collectus e codice Pragensi cum adnotationibus et introductione (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1940).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

138

Nathan R. Jastram

the Biblioth¦que National in Paris (P).4 Samuel Loewinger published full transcriptions of the lists from MBR and P, with notes on the lists found on folios 146 and 403 of D where they disagree with P.5 Jonathan Siegel published a monograph including transcriptions of MBR, D146, and P.6 Armin Lange is in the process of publishing a new critical edition with transcriptions of all four lists.7 One thing all these editions have in common is that they attempt to determine the particular variant intended by each entry in the list. This is a complex task because of the textual differences between the lists and the different methods that they use to indicate variants. For instance, Epstein treated MBR as recording the text of the variant in almost all of its entries, but the other lists of variants now prove that MBR often recorded only the ‘position’ of the variant rather than the ‘text’ of the variant. It also has become apparent that the proto-Masoretic Text that was used for comparative purposes when the list of Severus variants was first composed is not identical to the codex Leningradensis (L) that forms the standard for the Masoretic Text (MT) in today’s scholarly editions. Where the previous comparative standard text differs from L, it is labeled MTSev in this paper (i. e., the protoMasoretic Text as witnessed by the Severus Scroll variant list).8 This notation is used in the following places: D agrees with MTKetib against MTSev at Gen 36:14 (M=F= vs. M9F=); D and P agree with L against MTSev and MTmss at Gen 43:15 (A=LJB vs. 8B=LJB); MBR and D and P agree with L against MTSev and MTmss at Num 31:12 (N7F vs. N7F @?); P agrees with MTagainst MTSevP at Deut 29:22b (N?H8B? vs. A=8@4 N?H8B?). Further, it is not clear for every entry what the intended variant is. For instance, at Exod 19:3, MT preserves the mixed expression 5KF= N=5@ …@4LM= =D5@. MBR harmonizes the two phrases to @4LM= =D5@ …5KF= =5D@ and D and P harmonize them in the other direction to 5KF= N=5@ …@4LM= N=5@. Choosing which of these two harmonizations was the original Severus variant is impossible on the basis of the textual evidence alone. For another example, at Exod 26:27 D and P may well refer to an omission of both instances of A;=L5 in the verse, while MBR specifies that only the second instance is omitted (]=8^5 85 N\9 4D=DN). 4 A. A. Harkavy, 9N9LHE59 @4LM= N97@9N5 A=LK;B9 N9L9KB: A=DM= A6 A=M7; (Ha’asif, 1885); A. Neubauer, “Der Pentateuch der sogenannten Severus-Synagoge,” MGWJ 36 (1887), 508 – 509. 5 D. Loewinger, “@49 8798= L57BB 98=FM= N9@=65 @4 9E;= .4B9LB E9L=9E NED? N=55 :9D6 8=8M 8L9N LHE L=4B =5L @M 9NL9N,” Beit Mikra 42 (1970), 237 – 263. In this paper, the simple abbreviation D is used when both folios agree, D146 is used for folio 146, and D403 is used for folio 403. 6 J. P. Siegel, The Severus Scroll and 1QIsa (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975). 7 Lange has kindly made his prepublication draft available to me. 8 When it is necessary to distinguish only one of the Sev witnesses, such as P, the abbreviation MTSevP is used. 9 ‘Second,’ not ‘both;’ contrast Exod 19:3, where N=5@ is written in ‘both’ 98=9LN instances according to D and P.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

139

The Severus Scroll and Rabbi Meir’s Torah

Constructing a list of textual variants that has one intended variant for each entry is therefore a difficult task. In addition, such an approach ignores many variants unintentionally included in the medieval lists of variants. For instance, P has the entry 59N? 8=8 BN=54 N9@F@ AN=54 4@9 at Deut 1:26. The intended variant is the medial mem at the end of the verb BN=54, but an unintentional variant recorded by the entry is the plene spelling of N9@F@ against MT. The variant list below takes a new approach in order to present ‘all’ the textual variants that are contained in all four witnesses to the Severus Scroll variants. The variants below have been checked against the major ancient textual witnesses: MT; the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP); the Greek Septuagint (G); the Syriac Peshitta (S); Targum Onqelos (TO); Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (TPJ); ˙ Targum Neofiti (TN); the Vulgate (V). For economy of space, the ancient textual witnesses are only cited when they clearly disagree with MT. Where a biblical manuscript of the Dead Sea Scrolls is extant, it has always been cited. Where it is unclear which variant a Sev witness supports (such as when MBR simply marks the ‘location’ of a variant without specifying the ‘text’ of the variant), that witness is omitted from the citation. The reading of MT is the entry to the left of the square bracket. A brief identification of the variant in question is provided in a footnote for each entry.10

Reference Gen 1

31

Gen

3

21

Gen

18

21

Gen

24

7

Intended Variant 74B]11 N9B D P N9DN?]12 79DN? D P 8NKFJ?8 SP (8NKFJ ý8)]13 ANKFJ?8 D146 D403 (ANKFJK8) P G TO =54 N=5B]15 =N=5B MBR =N7@9B IL4B]16 =JL4B9 MBR; =N7@9B FL4B9 D P

Unintended Variant

8NKFJ?8 D146 P (ANKFJ?8)]14 ANKFJK8 D403 =D;K@ LM4 A=BM8 =8@4 898=]17 aliter MBR D P

10 Abbreviations used in this list and not explained above are the following: mss = manuscripts; vs. = versus; aliter = alternate reading, used when the readings diverge widely ; 3fs = third person feminine singular ; 3mp = third person masculine plural; Seb = Sebir (expected reading to be rejected); vid = as it appears; Q = Qumran; Mas = Masada. The Dead Sea Scrolls are cited by cave number, manuscript number, and abbreviation of content. 11 This variant is included in R. Meir’s Torah. Aural confusion (N/7) (see the same confusion at Gen 3:21). 12 Aural confusion (N/7) (see the same confusion at Gen 1:31). 13 Note only the pronominal suffix change from 3fs to 3mp. 14 Note only the corruption of the preposition by aural confusion (K/?). 15 Omission of word. 16 Omission of word; Aramaic form of word. 17 Paraphrase of locational context, drawn from Gen 24:12.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

140

Nathan R. Jastram

(Continued) Reference Gen

25

33

Gen

27

2

Gen

27

27

Gen

36

5

Gen

36

10

Gen

36

14

Gen

43

15

Gen

45

8

Intended Variant 9NL?5]18 9NL=?B MBR; 9NL?B D P =N9B A9=]21 =NBB9= D146 P; NBB9= D403

Unintended Variant L?B=9]19 L9?B=9 MBR 9NL?5 D146]20 9NL9?5 D403 P SP

87M SP (87M8)]22 87E D P M9F= MTKetib 4Q1 Gen-Exoda]23 M=F= D P MTQere

N4 87@= 8B5=@849 MBR (N4 87@= 85=@849)]24 aliter D P 8B5=@849 D P]25 85=@849 MBR; . 8B5@84[9 4Q1 Gen-Exoda ; ja· Ekibela G (*8B5=@49)

87F C5]26 87FD5 D P M=F= MTKetib D]28 M9F= MTQere MTSev SP G S TO TPJ TN V

87F D]27 8DF MBR; 8LF P? 8B5=@84 =D5 9=8 8@49 MBR]29 aliter D P

A=LJB D P]30 8B=LJB MTSev SP =DB=M=9]32 =DM=9 MBR 8FLH@]33 8FLH D P

9BK=9 P]31 9B9K=9 MBR D

18 The Sev variants are distinguished from each other by the presence or absence of an internal yod, but both vary from MT by graphic confusion (B/5), aided by harmonization with the root of the preceding verb L?B=9. The resulting variant was probably understood in the general sense of ‘something that is sold.’ Its resemblance to the enigmatic A8=NL?B Gen 49:5 is probably coincidental. Other examples of the B/5 confusion can be found in the book of Numbers: Num 3:12 =D5B (MT S T) vs. =D55 (MTmss SP 4Q23 Lev-Numa V); Num 8:16 =D5B (MT G S T) vs. =D55 (MTmss SP); Num 15:8 LK5 C5 (MT SP S T) vs. LK5 CB (G V); Num 20:22 M7KB (M SP G T V) vs. M7K5 (G4). 19 Mater lectionis. 20 Mater lectionis. 21 The variants here include word division, mater lectionis, and the omission of final yod. 22 Aural confusion (M/E). 23 Graphic confusion (=/9). 24 Paraphrase of locational context. 25 Omission of letter, mater lectionis. 26 Word division. 27 The variants here include at least a change of root, perhaps by harmonization (Oholibamah is 8DF N5 in Gen 36:14). The reading of P is uncertain; it either reads 87F with D, or 8LF due to graphic similarity (L/7). 28 Graphic similarity (=/9). 29 Paraphrase of locational context. 30 Locative. 31 Mater lectionis. 32 Change of root shared by R. Meir’s Torah. Moses Segal says: “The change is due to the accidental omission of B” (M. H. Segal, “The Promulgation of the Authoritative Text of the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 72:1 [1953], 35 – 47, esp. 46). An accidental omission, however, would need to include the ‘two’ letters –B=–, and it is unlikely that two different scribes would have made that same error independently. The commentary on the verse in MBR explains the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

141

The Severus Scroll and Rabbi Meir’s Torah

(Continued) Reference Gen 46 Gen 48

8 7

Exod

12

37

Exod

19

3

Intended Variant 8B=LJB]34 A=LJB D P Mas1 Gen AM]36 BM D P; > 4Q6 Genf G V EEBFLB 2Q2 Exoda]37 EBFLB D P 5KF= N=5@]38 5KF= =D5@ MBR @4LM= =D5@ MBR]39 @4LM= N=5@ D P TPJ

Exod

26

27

A;=L5 18]41 > D P V A;=L5 28]42 > MBR D P V

Exod

31

13

498%]47 4=8. MBR SP 4Q22 paleoExodm 4]=8

33

34 35

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

Unintended Variant @4LM= =D5 D P]35 > MBR

7=6N9 D146 P]40 76N9 MBR D403 8MB;9 D P]43 MB; MBR A;=L5]44 A=;L5 MBR; A=;=L5 D P . SP 4Q22 paleoExodm A=˚;[=L5 =MLK@ 18 D P 4Q22 paleoExodm]45 MLK@ MBR =MLK@ 28 D P]46 MLK@ MBR

variant root as being from 8M1D ‘lend,’ =D% M,ú1=(, but it may have been from the root 8DM1 ‘change,’ =D% D,ú M(1=! ! =D,% M(1=!. If so, it could have originated as a paraphrastic introduction meaning ‘and he changed me into being a father for Pharaoh’ (see A8=D=F5 9BFü N4 9DM=9 ‘and he changed himself, that is his appearance, in their eyes’ [1 Sam 21:14]). Another possibility is that the verb is a contracted form of =D% 2MúF#=( 9( , ‘and he made me.’ This retains the original sibilant (2M rather than M1) and recognizes the weakness of gutturals and the possibility of their omission (see Num 14:15 ýFBM [MT SP T] vs. *ýBM [G S]; Num 25:2 AF@ [MT SP S T] vs. *A@ [G V]). Preposition. Siegel claims that 8FLH@ 54@ subordinates ‘father’ to ‘Pharaoh’ and suggests that “a rejection of Jewish subjugation to Ptolemaic (Egyptian) rule (312 – 199 B.C.E.) might be implied in this variant” (The Severus Scroll, 30) but the grammatical analysis on which the suggestion depends fails in the realm of the hierarchy of personal relationships, as the phrase 7F@6 =5M= @?@ M4L@ 8=8= (Judg 10:18) shows quite clearly. Locative. This may simply be an abbreviation of the locational context in MBR, but it might also indicate an omission of two words. The words are not omitted in other witnesses here, but they are rather frequently omitted in various witnesses at other locations (e. g., Num 1:46; 2:2.33; 7:84; 8:19.22; 9:18; 14:7.10; 15:33; 31:9; 36:13). Medial letter in final position. 4Q6 Genf lacks not just this one word, but the entire phrase NLH4 ýL75 AM 8L5K49. Omission of letter by haplography. Harmonization. Harmonization. Mater lectionis. Omission of word (harmonization with Exod 26:26). Omission of word (harmonization with Exod 26:26). Omission of conjunction; omission of final heh. Matres lectionis (2x). Omission of final yod. Omission of final yod. Qere perpetuum.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

142

Nathan R. Jastram

(Continued) Reference Lev

4

34

Lev

14

10

Lev

15

8

Num

4

3

Num

15

21

Num

31

2

Num

31

12

Intended Variant 84ü;8 A7B]48 8B7B MBR V; (84ü;8) B7B D P 8B=BN]51 A=B=BN MBR D P A=B5]53 + A==; MBR D P 45 2Q6 Numa vid 4Q23 Lev˚ [5 ]55 458 MBR D P SP Numa 4 O PJ N G S T T T V Seb

Unintended Variant > D P]49 M5? A47 MBR A7B D403 P]50 LHB D146 8B=BN 8NDM N5 D P]52 8B=BN N5 MBR KL= P]54 L8ü= MBR 45J@]56 + 85 N9LK5 MBR; + N8K7D P

A?=NL7@]57 A?=L7@ MBR D P S TO TPJ TN

A?=NELF]58 E=LF MBR; A?=N9E=LF D P A?=NL7@]59 A?=N9L7@ D P

L;4]60 LM4 MBR D P; L;49 MTmss SP G S TPJ TN V

AKD]61 A9KD MBR

N7F MBR D P]62 N7F @? MTmss MTSev SP G (p²mtar) S TPJ V

945=9 MBR D146 P]63 94=5=9 D403 C8?8 L:F@4 @49]64 > MBR D P

48 Interchange between nomen rectum and pronominal suffix (harmonization with Lev 4:30); medial letter in final position. 49 Paraphrase of locational context. As Epstein explained, MBR identifies the phrase C8?8 ;K@9 as the one associated with (Aramaic 7) the M5? A4 of Lev 4:32. 50 Erasure of two letters leads to a corrupt text. 51 Gender and number change (harmonization with earlier form in the same verse). 52 This may simply be an abbreviation of the locational context in MBR, but it might also indicate an omission of 8NDM. 53 Addition of word (harmonization with Lev 15:13). 54 Change of root (harmonization with following L98ü5? confusion with Lev 15:13?). 55 Definite article. 56 Paraphrase of locational context (‘when called to it,’ ‘of Kohath’); corruption? Epstein plausibly emended MBR to read 85 N8K7 ‘(in the section) with Kohath in it’ (“PentateuchCodex,” 348 – 349). 57 Biform of plural as masculine (see the singular forms with suffixes: 9L97, Isa 53:8; =L97, Isa 38:12). 58 Abbreviation; matres lectionis (2x). 59 Mater lectionis. 60 Change of root; conjunction. The two variant readings are two different attempts to prevent a misunderstanding that could result from the original text, as if it said: “Exact the vengeance of the Israelites from the Midianites ‘after’ you are gathered to your people.” Adding a conjunction yields a more logical understanding: “Exact the vengeance of the Israelites from the Midianites, ‘and afterward’ you will be gathered to your people.” Instead of adding a conjunction, the Severus scroll switches one letter, making use of a meaning of LM4 as like =?, resolvable into ‘so that,’ i. e., “Exact the vengeance of the Israelites from the Midianites ‘so that’ you may be gathered to your people [having accomplished all your duties before death].” 61 Mater lectionis. 62 Presence of @?. 63 Mater lectionis.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

143

The Severus Scroll and Rabbi Meir’s Torah

(Continued) Reference Num

36

1

Deut

1

26

Deut

1

27

Deut

3

20

Intended Variant =D5]65 N=5 MBR; C5 D P MTmss S; > TPJ AN=54]67 N=54 MBR; BN=54 D P 69

=LB48] A=L9B48 MBR; LB48 D; L9B48 P A8 4Q31 Deutd]71 B8 D P 73

Deut Deut

22 6 29 22a

A=D58] A=D548 MBR D P 8HLM]75 NHLM MBR D P

Deut

29 22b

N?H8B? MT P (NH8B?)]76 A=8@4 N?H8B? MTSevP D

Deut

32

A8=4H4]79 A8=4 G4 MBR D; A8 =4 G4 P; A8 =H4 SP

26

Unintended Variant =M4L D P]66 M4L MBR N@F@]68 N@9F@ MBR P 9DN4]70 9DN94 MBR D P 9ML=9 MBR]72 9MF=9 D P 4@ D P]74 4@9 MBR A7E MT D]77 A97E MBR; A97E N4 P 8LBF9]78 8L9BF9 MBR

64 Abbreviation? Omission of phrase? See Num 36:1 8MB =DH@ (MT) vs. C89?8 L:˚F[@4 =DH@9 8M9B =DH@ (4Q27 Numb) and Num 27:2 C8?8 L:F@4 =DH@9 8MB =DH@ (MT). 65 Change of root; change of number (omission of final yod). 66 Omission of final yod. 67 Omission of one letter ; medial letter in final position. 68 Mater lectionis. 69 Mater lectionis; gentilic ending (omission of final yod). 70 Mater lectionis. 71 Medial letter in final position. 72 Perhaps a paraphrase of locational context. The root 8MF is found in Deut 3:6, carrying the meaning of AL;, which is in the semantic range of ML=, the root found in MT here. The same root, still in the same semantic range, is found twice in the verse following this one. Therefore, the use of this root here is more likely to be a paraphrase of locational context rather than a change of root in the Severus Scroll. 73 Mater lectionis? Change of root? When the Egyptian midwives saw Hebrew mothers giving birth upon the A=D54, they were to examine whether the child was male or female (Exod 1:16). Epstein thought the word here was from this root and proposed a definition as “the place where the mother rests with her newly born children.” 74 Conjunction. 75 Biform. In 4Q27 Numb at Num 18:26, the form NB9LNmay reflect a biform of the word 8B9LN, with an ending in N- (see other biforms preserved in MT: NM5/8M95; NF@9N/8F@9N). 76 Omission of divine name ; omission of one letter. The various entries here are particularly difficult to analyze. P (9N? 8=8 NH8B? A97E N4 A=8@4 N?H8B?) disagrees entirely with D (=N? A=8@4 N?H8B? A7E N?H8B?). The simplest solution would be to posit that P preserves the memory of the variant at this location, but switched the sources of the two readings. This passage and its close parallels (Amos 4:11; Isa 13:19; Jer 49:18; 50:40) are rife with variants in the ancient witnesses concerning the presence or absence of the divine name, the direct object marker, and the matres lectionis in the place names. The omission of one letter in NH8B? is a simple scribal error, like the omission of a single letter in MBR 85=@849 (Gen 36:5). 77 Mater lectionis; direct object marker. 78 Mater lectionis. 79 Word division; omission of one letter.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

144

Nathan R. Jastram

The variants for RM do not include ‘unintended variants’ as do the lists of Severus variants, but are recorded below according to the same principles used in the table above. Reference Gen

1

31

Intended Variant 74B]80 N9B RM D P

Gen Gen

3 45

21 8

L9F]81 L94 RM; *AL9F @F L94 T =DB=M=9]82 =DM=9 RM MBR

Gen Isa

46 21

23 11

=D59]83 C59 RM 8B97]84 =B9L RM

Isa

34

7

A=B4L]85 A=B9L RM

What can be seen for the first time as a result of the new approach above is that the variants that were unintentionally included in the four witnesses of the Severus variants are often of the same character as the intended variants, that is, they include differences in matres lectionis, omissions of letters or words, changes of roots through aural or graphic confusion or harmonization, and omissions of final yod. It is striking to find such unintended variants ‘hitchhiking’ with the intended variants in lists that are meticulous in their notation of similar variants in the Severus Scroll itself. What does this mean about the accuracy of these four witnesses to the Severus Scroll variants, and to the nature of the scrolls that they were comparing? To a large extent, the answer depends on whether each ‘unintended’ variant should be understood as an accurate representation of the MT being used as the standard of comparison when the lists were composed, or as an illustration of the freedom to make these kinds of changes even when quoting from a biblical text. Given the differences between the four lists, the latter possibility is more likely. Another major question is whether the lists of variants were intended to be comprehensive or only illustrative of the variant readings in the Severus Scroll. That MBR includes many entries that merely establish the location of a variant rather than the text of the variant suggests that the lists were intended to be comprehensive, alerting the reader that variant readings were to be found only, or primarily, at the precise locations indicated. The intent to be comprehensive is 80 See comment in previous table. 81 Aural confusion (F/4). The Targums have various readings that appear to reflect the conflation of L94 and L9F here : C*98L!E5% ýM(B! @F( LK)=7% (TO); C98=LM=5 ýMB @F…LK=7 (TPJ); C98LM5 ýMB@ LK947(TN). Ps 76:5 and Ezek 43:2 associate light with glory. 82 See comment in previous table. 83 See similar variant in previous table at Num 36:1. 84 Graphic confusion (L/7); switch of final mater lectionis. 85 Graphic confusion (L/7); switch of internal mater lectionis.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Severus Scroll and Rabbi Meir’s Torah

145

also evident in the inclusion of many minor variants involving matres lectionis and medial forms of letters found in final positions. This combination of freedom to make certain changes when transcribing biblical texts, combined with the intention of recording comprehensive lists of variant readings, suggests that these lists of variants should be used cautiously, neither discarding the evidence they provide nor accepting it uncritically. Thus the four witnesses to the Severus Scroll variants should be used critically as witnesses in their own right to variations in the biblical texts that were being transmitted between the Second Temple and medieval times.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Alex Samely Manchester University, United Kingdom

Some Literary Features of Midrashic and Masoretic Statements

Introduction The aim of this paper is to reflect on the nature of Masoretic information, in comparison to other phenomena of Bible-related literature in Jewish antiquity. I will suggest that many instances of Masoretic statements, as found in the Masoretic sources, address topics that are so specifically meta-linguistic in nature that no information on the actual meaning and subject matter of Scripture is contained in them. By contrast, most explicit units of interpretation found in midrashic literature will speak about the text in such a way that they also formulate the perceived biblical meaning and pronounce on the biblical topics. Exclusively meta-linguistic statements on the biblical text are a rarity outside the dedicated Masoretic sources. This distinction makes it possible to define one typically ‘Masoretic’ kind of information by substance and format, not just by its occurrence in technical Masoretic sources or by its terminology. I will propose a typology of Bible-related texts from Jewish antiquity within which the exceptional character of this kind of Masoretic information becomes clearly visible.1

1.

Formal Sentence Types: Meta-Language and Object Language

I call ‘Masoretic’ the information found in specifically Masoretic sources, in particular the margins of medieval Hebrew Bible manuscripts (Masorah parva and magna), the end of copies of biblical books (Masorah finalis) and separate 1 This is based on the results of a four-year AHRC project at Manchester and Durham Universities entitled “Typology of Anonymous and Pseudepigraphic Jewish Literature of Antiquity,” for which see http://www.manchester.ac.uk/ancientjewishliterature/. From 2007 to 2011 the project was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (UK), whose support is hereby gratefully acknowledged.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

148

Alex Samely

lists, such as the ’Okhlah we-’Okhlah. The Masorah parva (Mp) is the most important. The reason for this is that the claims of the Mp are independent of any other Masoretic text, but directly tied to the biblical text by layout and special signs. Although the Masorah magna (Mm) can provide a variety of basic information itself, it very often depends on the Mp, as when it identifies by quoting those verses implicitly referred to in the Mp.2 With the exception of the kind of Masorah finalis which gives the number of verses and similar information at the end of a biblical book, the Mp is the main format in which particular pieces of information are linked immediately to a point of reference in the biblical text. The presentation of the Mp’s information itself is entirely implicit,3 namely by alignment between the marginal text and a main text column, and additionally by placement of a circellus. It is the placement of a Mp note in the margins of a copy of a biblical text that determines to which sign a Masoretic remark (such as, ’@, ‘unique’) relates, and therefore what information is actually expressed in the note. This paper wishes to determine the nature of one particular kind of Masoretic information, often expressed in Mp notes, which I will call ‘exclusively metatextual.’ Israel Yeivin sums up the nature of the biblical Masorah in contrast to the Masorah of the Targum as follows: The Masorah to the Targum Onqelos is not mainly concerned with the spelling of words and the number of times they occur, as is the Biblical Masorah, although there are some notes of this sort…4

To say that the biblical Masorah is mainly concerned with the spelling of words and the number of times they occur implies that, if one were to count all notes of the Masorah and work out the proportion of different kinds of information in them, the spelling and frequency of words would account for a large majority. This is the kind of Masoretic information that I will concentrate upon, as being exclusively meta-textual, when drawing out the contrast to midrashic interpretation of Scripture. But it is also important to acknowledge that there are quite diverse kinds of information in the Masoretic sources. In particular a number of categories of qere are not exclusively meta-textual (see below). If we accept for the moment that Yeivin has identified a very important 2 I. Yeivin (Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Translated by E. J. Revell [Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature/Scholars Press, 1980], 74, §126) puts it like this: “The basic function of the […] Masorah magna (Mm) is to give the details of the information summarized in the notes of the Mp. The Mp simply notes the number of cases in which a particular spelling occurs in the Bible. The lists of the Mm provide references to the individual passages in which the words in question occur.” 3 A very important difference to midrashic texts. See below. 4 Yeivin, Introduction, 121, §135. For the Targum Masorah, see M. L. Klein, The Masorah to Targum Onqelos (Binghampton, NY: Global Publications/Binghampton University, 2000).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

149

Some Literary Features of Midrashic and Masoretic Statements

˘

category of Masoretic information, it is worth examining why this is so different from the information found in rabbinic texts consisting of midrashic units, namely exegetical and homiletical midrashim. I propose to analyse some passages where exegetical or homiletic works of Midrash contain what looks like Masoretic statements, with a view to defining more closely the type and format of those statements. Masoretic sources generally tend to be about the linguistic constitution of specific biblical words and sentences. They comment on biblical ‘signs as signs,’ whether it is the graphic appearance, the spelling, the lexical identity, syntactic collocations or the structure of sentences. Often the meta-linguistic information is couched in comparative or quantitative terms, relating those signs to other signs, found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. The kind of Masoretic information I wish to discuss in detail and which I shall illustrate below is of this nature. However, additionally it happens to be not concerned with the biblical meaning at all, although it can be used to establish that biblical meaning. It is ‘exclusively’ concerned with the constitution of the biblical signs, in that it does not also thematize in any way the perceived biblical meaning or identify the perceived biblical objects. Let me illustrate and refine the idea of exclusively meta-linguistic Masoretic information. One finds the Mp stating that the combination ’aron ha- edut found in Exod 39:35 occurs twelve times. This observation is clearly about a certain sign of the text in a certain spelling, and the number of occurrences in the text, but while it addresses the combination as a linguistic sign, namely a combination of two words, it is not interested in the occurrence of that sign as part of the Hebrew language in general. It is specifically about that occurrence of the linguistic sign N7F8 CL4 in that unique biblical text, at the point Exod 39:35, and in comparison with other text points, and thus meta-linguistic but only through the lens of being meta-textual, namely concerned with one particular occurrence of a sign in a unique text. Additionally, it addresses that sign to the exclusion of information on meaning. The fact that ’aron ha- edut occurs twelve times in a particular text is exclusively concerned with the linguistic and graphic constitution of the text. It corresponds to cases (a) and (b) in the following table of statements; these statements too are exclusively about sign constitution, while statement (c) is meta-linguistic but not to the exclusion of thematic information, and (d) is not meta-linguistic at all: ˘

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

150

Alex Samely

Example (a) “Dagger” has six letters.

Type of Content Exclusively meta-linguistic

(b) “Is this a *dagger* which I see before me?:”5 The word marked by asterisks has six letters. (c) In the sentence, “Is this a dagger which I see before me?,” the meaning of “dagger” is “short sword”.

Exclusively meta-linguistic and meta-textual Meta-textual and also concerned with meaning (object)

(d) The dagger has six notches.

Exclusively object-linguistic

Statement (a) tells us nothing about a particular dagger or indeed about the meaning of the English word ‘dagger’ in general. Rather it tells us about one aspect of its linguistic constitution as written sign, namely, how many letters it has. The same applies to statement (b). It too tells us merely about the constitution of the sign, but it is even more restricted, in that it addresses how that sign is spelled in this particular occurrence in a unique text. It is both metalinguistic and meta-textual. If I am ignorant of the English language, I will not learn the meaning of the word, nor its importance for the events of Macbeth, from the comments in (a) or (b). Case (c) on the other hand, is quite different. It too is meta-linguistic and meta-textual, in that it is concerned with the linguistic sign ‘dagger’ in a text. But it also addresses the meaning of the word, supplying another English word to refer to the same thing, and this is what midrashic units tend to do. In that sense, it uses information about the objects in the world as projected in the text, to speak about the text. Case (c) still does not speak about the dagger as an object directly ; that happens in (d), and in almost all naturally occurring sentences in which the word ‘dagger’ figures, unless they are paraphrasing another text. To anticipate later parts of this paper : a sentence such as (d) occurs in the Hebrew Bible, most of the texts known as rewritten Bible, or the Mishnah; a sentence such as (c) is typical of the commentary literature of rabbinic Judaism and earlier, that is, works of exegetical and homiletical Midrash and Pesharim like the Habakkuk Pesher ; and a sentence such as (b) occurs in particular in Masoretic sources. The claim of this paper is that sentences of type (b) are extremely rare in the texts of Midrash, while they are very common in the sources of Masorah. They therefore provide one analytical tool for identifying information which is akin to (one type) of Masoretic information when it occurs in a non-Masoretic environment, such as Genesis Rabbah. This criterion of difference is independent of the occurrence of any particular kind of terminology (such as qere, ketiv, male’, etc.) and of the question if the information is also found in Masoretic sources at all. It is thus a criterion that allows disentangling, at least theoretically, two aspects of the word ‘Masoretic:’ typically 5 Macbeth, ii. i. 33.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Some Literary Features of Midrashic and Masoretic Statements

151

Masoretic information versus occurrence in a Masoretic source. The criterion allows us to ask and answer the question: Are there ever midrashic passages which are ‘Masoretic’ in the sense of being of the same ‘type’ as much of the Masorah, but do not occur in Masoretic sources or do not use a terminology typical for Masoretic sources? I do not know the answer to this and similar questions, but wish to suggest conceptual tools that allow searching for an empirical answer. Before going further let me make my terminological choices more transparent. I shall use the word ‘meta-linguistic’ to describe a statement that concerns the linguistic or graphic constitution of a sign or a group of signs. The term meta-linguistic implies a contrast between a meta-language on the one hand, that is, the language in which linguistic or other signs are discussed, and an object language on the other, that is, the language in which one (usually) refers to the non-verbal objects of a projected world, whether real or fictional.6 We can at all times turn from using a word to thematizing that word itself, as a sign. Such a turn is made in almost all midrashic and Masoretic statements. However, they do not just address the linguistic sign in general, but the linguistic sign as used at a certain point in a certain text, Scripture. That is why I use the narrower term ‘meta-textual.’7 The notion meta-textual always implies the notion meta-linguistic, except when wider semiotic possibilities are considered, rather than specifically linguistic ones. As an example, one can mention the interpretation that interprets the shape of the letter bet in beresˇi’t as indicating something closed to what is above, what is beneath and what is before.8 In this case the

6 The word ‘object language’ is actually ambiguous, with noticeable differences of emphasis in different philosophical, logical or linguistic scholarly contexts. As used by the logician A. Tarski, (“The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4 [1944], 341 – 376), it refers to the language that is “talked about” in the meta-language (and thus the latter’s “object,” a relationship that can be iterated, p. 350); but it is also used by Tarski and others to explicate the case when that object language, the one talked about in the meta-language, is about non-verbal “objects” or “states of affairs” (p. 345), and that is the sense I am going to presuppose here throughout. 7 In saying that the notion meta-linguistic is implied by the notion meta-textual, I do not wish to make the claim that observations on how specific signs work in a specific text describe the Saussurian langue. They manifestly do not, in that the aspect of generality is lacking. Yet, the meta-textual implies the meta-linguistic, insofar as the signs are identified as those of a language (rather than some other semiotic system), and of a particular language. I am grateful to Dr. J. Elwolde of the United Bible Societies Association for querying my use of the word ‘meta-linguistic’ at the Madrid symposium. It has helped me to make more precise my understanding of the terminological issues here. See on the general question, R. Harweg, “Texte als Einheiten der Parole und der Langue,” in id., Studien zur Textlinguistik. Aufsätze (Aachen: Shaker, 2001), 61 – 81. 8 GenR 1:10 ad Gen 1:1, see Midrash Bereshit Rabbah. Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary, Edited by J. Theodor and C. Albeck (vols. 1 – 3; Berlin/Jerusalem, 1893 – 1936), 1:8;

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

152

Alex Samely

statement is meta-textual but not meta-linguistic, but in most rabbinic hermeneutic practice the former implies the latter. I shall use the term ‘object language’ or object linguistic to refer to statements which are about non-verbal objects. And I shall use the expression ‘exclusively meta-linguistic’ (or exclusively meta-textual) when characterizing statements that contain no meaning component from the object language at all, and do not express the meaning perceived in a biblical word or phrase. The following statements sum up the key distinctions of my paper : - All or almost all Masoretic information is meta-linguistic, and more precisely, meta-textual. - A large proportion or majority of Masoretic information is furthermore ‘exclusively’ meta-linguistic and meta-textual, as in statement type (b) in the table above. - Almost all midrashic units are meta-linguistic, and more precisely, metatextual. - But almost all midrashic units use this meta-textual format to address the meaning of Scripture and therefore reduplicate the biblical object language. Midrashic units are hardly ever ‘exclusively’ meta-textual, but rather are as statement type (c) in the table above. In the terminology of this paper then, the biblical Masorah considers to a very large extent the constitution of biblical signs in separation from their meaning or reference, that is, in separation from their ‘objects.’ By contrast, the units of interpretation overwhelmingly found in works of Midrash consider the constitution of the biblical signs in such a manner that their reference in the biblical object language remains in view.

see A. Samely, “Between Scripture and its Rewording: Towards a Classification of Rabbinic Exegesis,” JJS 42 (1991), 39 – 67.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

153

Some Literary Features of Midrashic and Masoretic Statements

2.

Masorah Parva in Contrast to Midrashic Units

Let me illustrate the nature of the biblical Masorah with respect to these distinctions by a specific sample from the Mp. A randomly chosen set of nine verses, Exod 39:32 – 40, throws up the following cases:9

case

Biblical lemma

Masorah parva

meaning

(1)

@?N9

’@

(2)

N75F @?

’E; ’NL94 @?

(3)

94=5=9

9@

(4)

9;=L5

’K 9=;=L5 5 CB 7; 8DM@5 ’E;

Unique in this form. Written defective as here everywhere in the Pentateuch. Thirty-six occurrences. qere. One of two defective occurrences of this word in the language. Unique spelled in this form.

passage Exod 39:32

Codex Leningrad Mp ’@ –

Exod 39:33

8@ ’K 9=;=L5 ’E; 5

(5)

NL9F

C? ’N? ’@

(6)

’@

Unique in this form.

’@

(7)

A@=48 A=B74B8 N?LH N49

5

Two occurrences of the combination.

5

(8)

N4

N4 H.L 9 N49 N49

(9)

N7F8 CL4

5=

(10)

9=75 N49

7

(11)

N4 C;@M8

N4 H.L 7 N49 N4

(12)

5

(13)

@? N4 9=@? A;@ N49

5

(14)

A=DH8

=

Six occurrences at the beginning of verses of ’et…we-’et…we-’et. Twelve occurrences of this combination. Four occurrences of this combination. Four occurrences at the beginning of verses of ’et…’et…we-’et.

Exod 39:34

Exod 39:35

C? ’N? ’@

– 4= 7

Exod 39:36

–

Two occurrences of this combination. Two occurrences of this combination.

5

Ten occurrences.

-

5

9 I am following Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), checked against the evidence of Codex Lenigradensis (L). I leave unmarked the letters used as numerals.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

154

Alex Samely

(Continued) case Biblical lemma

Masorah parva

meaning

’K9EH ;= N49 N4 N4 N49 :

Eighteen verses have ’et…’et…we-’et…we-’et.

;5:B N49

’K9EH 9? N49 N49 N49 N49 ü

Twenty-six verses have we-’et…we-’et…we’et…we-’et. Nine occurrences of this combination.

(19)

CBM N49

:

(20)

;5:B NM;D8

’L9N5 5

Seven occurrences of this combination. Two occurrences in the Torah.

(21)

8=7BF N4

7

(22)

N75F

’NL94 @? ’E;

(23)

@84@ 7F9B

8

(15)

8LDB8 N4

(16)

CBM N49

(17)

;5:B N49

(18)

passage Exod 39:37

Seven occurrences of this combination.

Four occurrences.

Codex Leningrad Mp

: Exod 39:38

– ü :

Exod 39:39

–

Exod 39:40

7

Spelled defective in the whole of the Pentateuch.

–

Five occurrences of this combination.

8

There are 23 Masoretic indicators in the margin of this passage, making up nearly a whole page of BHS, although several are not in L. With one possible exception, they do not address the meaning of the biblical sign, and thus do not mention its link to the objects which are projected in the text: the tabernacle and its furnishings, Moses, etc. I will address the exception presently. One can sort the types of information that are supplied in the 23 instances of Mp above into the following groupings: – 1, 5, 6: Addresses the occurrence of a specific linguistic and graphic sign in a text, marking it as unique for this text (Scripture); 5 also mentions the particular spelling (ketiv ken), because of the two choices within the word for plene/ defective spelling. – 2, 4, 22: Describes by the word h. aser one aspect of the manner in which the spelling, e. g., the consonants, of a written sign represent the sound (and thus meaning) of a word; compares that with all other occurrences of the same meaning in a particular part (’orayta’) of the overall text (Scripture). – 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23: Gives the number of occurrences of a particular linguistic sign in a particular

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Some Literary Features of Midrashic and Masoretic Statements

155

text, or as in 8, the number of a particular constellation of words or syntactic structure and position in the sentence (ro’sˇ pasuq). – 4: Represents a particular sign in a different spelling, tacitly implying that the new set of consonants presents less ambiguously or more accurately than the biblical consonants the sound, and thus the meaning, of the sign. The second piece of information in 4 compares the spelling with the rest of the text and gives the number of occurrences of this particular sign. The vast majority of these Masoretic notes are devoted to the question of the total occurrences of linguistic signs, sometimes within specified boundaries, sometimes with reference to a syntactic structure and thus also with reference to a unit called pasuq, the ‘verse,’ with numbers 8, 11, 15 and 17 using the word in abbreviated form. (None of these actually occur in L, but neither do numbers 20 and 22.) Overall, 19 of the 23 cases involve the use of a number term, including the second point in 4; while all the rest except the first point in 4 imply either the quantity zero (’@) or an all-inclusive statement (‘all’) with regard to certain textual boundaries, sometimes left undeclared, sometimes declared. In some cases the Mp consists of an elliptic nominal sentence, for example ‘[This is] one of two [occurrences] spelled defective in the language’ (case 4). In the other cases, the ellipsis is more severe, in particular if the whole statement consists of nothing but a number. In these cases of extreme ellipsis, one might even argue that no ‘statement,’ or intelligible claim, is presented at all, but that would be an exaggeration. The other Mp cases alongside a given number, together with the Masoretic circellus,10 the Mm and the general repetition of information type ‘number,’ appear to secure a proper understanding of the meaning of these single letters, marked as abbreviations by dots above, and that meaning is meta-textual. However, it is obvious that if one wishes to convey the information of the Mp without its spatial juxtaposition to a piece of biblical text one has to create a verbal statement involving words alongside a numeral; and in particular, one has to quote the biblical word or phrase and integrate it into a more complex format than either just the biblical text or just the Masoretic note. The basic shape of the information found in the Mp transposed into such a statement is the same as that of the midrashic unit: biblical quotation together with a comment statement, forming a unity of meaning. 10 The precise placement of the circellus is often crucial for understanding to which sign the Mp relates in the first place, in particular when only a number of occurrence or other exclusively meta-textual information is given. It is much less crucial for many qere cases, at least if the whole word is repeated in the margin, not just the target letter, as in some manuscripts. The deictic relationship determined through the placement of the circellus is also presupposed in the word ken of case 5 above.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

156

Alex Samely

But there is a vital difference. In most midrashic units the information expressed in the comment statement ‘restates’ the perceived biblical meaning. The comment statement stands in a relationship of reduplication and substitution with the biblical wording indicated in the quotation. In the Masoretic examples above, with one arguable exception, there is no such restatement of meaning. Instead of substituting one sign for another sign, and thus restating the perceived meaning, the Masoretic information presented as a quotation-comment unit is ‘exclusively’ meta-textual, it only addresses the constitution or distribution of the signs in a text. This also means that the relationship of the two components within the quotation-comment unit has a different character from that within most midrashic units. For the vast majority of all midrashic units, the relationship of the two components has to be understood as one of the following: Quotation Scriptural sign X Scriptural proposition ‘X is the case’ Scriptural report ‘X happened’ Scriptural commandment ‘Do X!’

Relationship has the meaning has the meaning has the meaning has the meaning

… Comment A. ‘A is the case.’ ‘A happened.’ ‘Do A!’

Many midrashic units have nothing that corresponds to the words “has the meaning” here, but must be understood to imply it; many others have wording that actually expresses this relationship, using simple phrases like “it teaches,” or complicated ones like: “Scriptural sign ‘Y:’ Do I understand that B is the case? Scripture teaches: ‘X,’ so A is the case.” In this relationship between quotation and comment, “A” says again what X is perceived as saying or, if X is a single word, then the meaning arises from A being put into the biblical sentence in the place of X. As a result A, like X, is a claim about what the projected world is like. Thus when a midrashic unit claims: Resˇit means ‘Torah’, with reference to Gen 1:1, it presents the biblical sentence as meaning, “God created heaven and earth with Torah” (see GenR 1:1). This means that the comment statement has a ‘paraphrastic’ function. This sets it apart from the majority of Masoretic information, as found in the sample of 23 cases above. If transformed into a quotation-comment format, most of the Masoretic information in our sample group has the following structure, if we use number 16 as an illustration: Quotation Relationship Comment The sign “And the oil” (Exod 39:37) – occurs seven times in this text.

There is nothing happening here that would correspond to a relationship of substitution or paraphrase; there is no ‘doubling of meaning’ which would require any special relationship at all. The relationship between “And the oil” and “occurs seven times in this text,” is simply that between subject and predicate of the same sentence, a grammatical relationship. This is like:

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Some Literary Features of Midrashic and Masoretic Statements

157

“Is this a *dagger* which I see before me?:” The word marked by asterisks has six letters”

above in (b). It is not like: In the sentence, “Is this a dagger which I see before me?” the meaning of “dagger” is ‘short sword.’

above in (c). The word ‘occurs’ here could not be replaced by words such as ‘means’ or ‘teaches,’ nor could “seven times” take the place of the phrase “and the oil” in the biblical sentence Exod 39:37. In a word, Masoretic quotationcomment units like the one about the oil concern the constitution, appearance, pronunciation or graphic character of a linguistic sign within a text, not the meaning of the sentence or the meaning of the text or even of the specific component (“and the oil”). On the side of the interpreter’s statement, there is nothing that would correspond to the perceived ‘meaning’ of “and the oil.” The same is true of almost all the other examples from our list above. But there is one exception, indicating the existence of a whole category of Masoretic statements which are different. In number 4 a word that occurs in the biblical column is repeated in the margin with a graphic difference that could be interpreted, in particular in a midrashic context, as ‘meaning difference,’ and thus the Masoretic statement could be taken to make a point also about a non-verbal object, in addition to being about the constitution of a sign as sign, which it obviously is. Example number 4 concerns the qere berih. aw, ‘bars,’ in Exod 39:33. The sign ’K next to the word indicates that the implied Masoretic statement is about the sound of this combination of letters. Its spelling in the margin (with yod-waw) is meant to show the pronunciation or the grammar (plural). This the Masoretic note either takes as intended by the MT consonantal text anyway, so that the note merely clarifies what MT already indicates, but less clearly. Or the Masoretic note takes MT as requiring correction to the new spelling, as the MT spelling is not conveying the MT-intended meaning properly. The Masoretic note thus appears to provide an all-round package of information on the sign, namely pronunciation, spelling, grammar and thereby meaning. If the MT spelling were to be taken as improperly indicating the singular, which I shall assume for the sake of the argument, then the qere berih. aw suggest to replace that by a word that sounds different, has a different consonantal spelling and number, and means ‘its bars,’ when berih. o means ‘its bar.’11 If that were the case, 11 As it happens, F. Brown, S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs ([eds.], The New Hebrew and English Lexicon [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1979], 138) note the qere for this word here and at Exod 35:11 and voice their opinion that it is “needless.” The JPS Tanakh and the NRSV translate the plural. A similar case, suffix waw versus suffix yod-waw, is mentioned in y. Sanh 10:2 29b line 22; see Yeivin, Introduction, 60, §105 where he refers to fol. 29a.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

158

Alex Samely

the difference between the Masoretic and the MT version amounted to a difference in the objective world projected in that biblical sentence: the tabernacle’s ‘one’ bar versus its ‘several’ bars. Having admitted this possibility, it must be said, however, that the abbreviated word qere next to 9=;=L5 shows that the note is not primarily about the meaning at all, and so does the exclusively meta-textual nature of the surrounding Masoretic notes as documented in 22 of the above 23 cases. Nevertheless, the presence of a ‘substitute word’ for a biblical text word expands the possibilities of this piece of information. For this Masoretic note, if for no other from the above group, it is at least conceivable that the Mp makes a claim that by the superficial meaning of berih. o as ‘its bar,’ the biblical text actually ‘means’ berih. aw, ‘its bars.’ It is this potentially intended meaning difference which allows Masoretic notes of the qere type to play an independent role in texts of Midrash, as we shall see below. This goes for all cases of qere where both the MT and the qere are meaningful, and can be seen as differing in meaning. Thus it is possible to reinterpret such Masoretic notes as an hermeneutic engagement of the kind that I explained above as typical for a midrashic unit. Qere cases like berih. aw are not the only category of Masoretic notes which provide for the possibility of substitutional meaning relationships. Other categories are those Masoretic notes which present an entirely different word, because the MT word is to be replaced in the public reading. This is particularly clear in the case of the Masoretic ‘euphemisms.’12 Furthermore, there are instances of qere which correct the particle of negation 4@ to the indirect object preposition with suffix 9@,13 or where something is read that is not in the text or not read that is in the text.14 Some Masoretic information is also based on meaning distinctions.15 The main reason for the fact that Masoretic qere notes produce substitution relationships formally akin to midrashic units appears to be that, insofar as their purpose can be assumed to regulate the sound scape produced by ‘reading’ the text, they create a doppelganger of the text. Everything in the written MT is doubled up by a second text created in a virtual act of reading: the graphic signs become the sounds of a voice.16 In almost all places the manner in which the 12 Yeivin, Introduction, 56, §98. 13 See the list of such cases in the Mm ad Exod 21:8; see P. H. Kelley and D. S. Mynatt, T. G. Crawford, The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Introduction and Annotated Glossary (Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998), 122. 14 See e. g. E. Mart†n-Contreras and G. Seijas de los R†os-Zarzosa, Masora: La transmisiûn de la tradiciûn de la Biblia Hebrea (Estella, Navarra: Verbo Divino, 2010), 183 – 185. 15 Masoretic comments can be based on meaning distinctions as such, and the term 4DM=@ can be used in this sense; see, e. g., Yeivin, Introduction, 98, §132. 16 See A. Samely, “The Bible as Talked About: Reflections on the Usage and Conceptual Im-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Some Literary Features of Midrashic and Masoretic Statements

159

written text corresponds to the envisaged sound scape is considered to be unproblematic, no qere note is given, and thus there is no separately written record, tailor-made for the reading. Only the passages marked by qere are judged to require spelling out, with the exception of the ‘perpetual’ qere which is taken for granted. This doubling of the text, on the one hand a graphic representation, and on the other a series of sounds, is responsible for qere cases approaching cases of hermeneutic engagement as found in most midrashic units. One might even say that rabbinic Judaism creates two different doppelgangers for Scripture in Masorah and in Midrash, each carefully aligned with the written text:17 a) one which is the totality of the sound of the biblical text: Masorah, in one of its aspects; and b) one which is the totality of its meaning, or the totality of all alternative meanings: Midrash and other rabbinic texts.18 This is what produces the structural similarity between the format of midrashic interpretation and the format of Masoretic qere. Whether this also means that at least some qere cases can be interpreted as presenting themselves in the same manner as midrashic units tend to, namely as a hermeneutic determination of a biblical meaning, is a different question, to be decided on a case by case basis, taking into account the actual contents of the Masoretic qere notes, among other things. These contents are disparate, as Yeivin’s attempt to classify them indicates.19

3.

Masoretic Information in a Midrashic Literary Environment

The above reflections have prepared the ground for an analysis of the occurrence of Masoretic information within non-Masoretic sources, in particular works of Midrash. The nature of Masoretic information, insofar as it is exclusively metatextual, means that if such information were to appear as a stand-alone quotation-comment unit alongside midrashic quotation-comment units it would be very conspicuous, because very obviously different, with the exception of qere cases. So how do exclusively meta-textual observations, of the kind typical for the Mp, function in rabbinic texts? One finds basically the following four constellations: plications of the Term ‘Miqra’ in Early Rabbinic Literature,” in K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange (eds.), What is Bible (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 193 – 218. 17 See on the hermeneutic use of the written text in rabbinic Judaism, A. Goldberg, “The Rabbinic View of Scripture,” in P. R. Davies and R. White (eds.), A Tribute to Geza Vermes (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 153 – 166. 18 There is in fact a third rabbinic or rabbinic-controlled doppelganger, which is also concerned with meaning but is at the same time bound by conventions of translational equivalence: the Targums. See A. Samely, “The Targums within a New Description of Jewish Text Structures in Antiquity,” Aramaic Studies 9 (2011), 5 – 38. 19 Yeivin, Introduction, 56 – 61, §98 – 105.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

160

Alex Samely

i)

The Masoretic information is exclusively meta-textual and does not appear as a stand-alone quotation-comment unit, but has a subordinate function within a midrashic unit expressing a meaning substitute for the biblical object language. ii) The Masoretic information is a qere case, and therefore apparently provides its own substitutional doubling of a piece of Scripture, and is placed as a stand-alone quotation-comment unit alongside midrashic quotation-comment units. iii) The Masoretic information is exclusively meta-textual, and is placed as a stand-alone quotation-comment unit alongside midrashic quotation-comment units. iv) The Masoretic information is exclusively meta-textual and is part of an explicit rabbinic discourse on the nature of the biblical text as a text, its scribal characteristics or its rules of liturgical reading. It is case iii) which would be most conspicuous within rabbinic texts, since what is actually done by such a quotation-comment unit would be very different from the surrounding midrashic units in most cases. The unit may well find its ‘correct’ place within the sequential arrangement of a lemmatic commentary such as Genesis Rabbah, but it would nevertheless appear to interrupt the hermeneutic activity that takes place from midrashic unit to midrashic unit, by not providing a sign substitute so as to express the meaning perceived in Scripture. Leaving aside for the purposes of the current paper the constellation iv), I will now briefly illustrate categories i) to iii). Our first two passages are examples of case i). The first relates to toledot in Gen 2:4 and has been identified by Elvira Mart†n-Contreras as belonging to the Masoretic dimension of midrashic works.20 It reads: [A] GenR 12:6, ad Gen 2:4:21 ‘Generations’ (toledot). All toledot enunciated in Scripture are defective, except two – “These are the toledot of Perez” (Ruth 4:18), and this one (C78). And what of those that are defective? R. Judan in the name of R. Abun: “Six” (the lacking waw), according to the six things that were taken away from Adam Ha-Ri’shon: his lustre, his (eternal) life, … R. Berekhiah in the name of R. Shemuel bar Nachman: Although these things were said (created) according to their fullness, when Adam Ha-Ri’shon sinned, they were spoiled. And furthermore, they will not return to their perfection until the son of Perez 20 E. Mart†n-Contreras, “Terminolog†a masor¦tica en la ex¦gesis de G¦nesis Rabb– (secciones ‘Be˘re’sˇıt’ y ‘Noah’),” Sefarad 59 (1999), 343 – 352, esp. 345 f.; see also id., “Una lista maso˙ comentarios exeg¦ticos,” MEAH 52 (2003), 61 – 75, esp. 65. r¦tica in¦dita con 21 For the Hebrew text, Midrash Bereshit Rabba, 101 – 102. The translation is adapted from Midrash Rabbah: Genesis, trans. H. Freedman (compact edition; London: Soncino, 1977), 271. ˘

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Some Literary Features of Midrashic and Masoretic Statements

161

arrives, “These are the toledot of Perez” –toledot full, with waw (= six). These are them (the six items so indicated): his lustre… C=LN CB L5 C=LE; 4LKB5 9LB4DM N97@9N @?

Masoretic information is here spelled out twice as a whole statement, in the manner in which I above suggested it needed to be if it is to be found away from the margins of a biblical text. It involves a quotation from Scripture and a comment statement regarding that quotation: ‘Generations’ (toledot). All toledot enunciated in Scripture are defective, except two –“These are the toledot of Perez” (Ruth 4:18), and this one.

The comment statement is exclusively meta-textual: this (Gen 2:4) is one of two passages in Scripture where toledot occurs and is spelled plene. This statement is about nothing but the constitution of the sign; it is not about its meaning. There is a second such exclusively meta-textual quotation-comment unit later in the same passage: “These are the toledot of Perez” –toledot full, with waw.

However, these exclusively meta-linguistic statements do not stand alone. They are integrated into a discourse on the meaning of the biblical wording, making use of two general hermeneutic ideas, namely that plene spelling symbolically indicates perfection, while defective spelling indicates something imperfect; and that the numerical value of the letter in question is part of the meaning, in this case the waw corresponding to six. Therefore in this passage overall, purely meta-textual observations alternate with paraphrases of biblical meaning, meaning taken to be implied in spelling differences between the same word occurring in different biblical locations, and thus topics. Masoretic clauses repeat or describe in meta-linguistic terminology the biblical graphic evidence, which provides the evidence base for the whole interpretation. Thus two formally different components collaborate with each other within midrashic units of this type. The Masoretic-type information draws attention to, insists on, repeats, or points to the exact appearance of the biblical text. By contrast, the paraphrase of its meaning bases itself on this exact appearance, among other kinds of bases. Seen in a co-text consisting of discourse and midrashic units, the Masoretic information effectively ‘doubles’ the lemma’s presence in the midrashic unit, while it does not, like a hermeneutic restatement of the biblical meaning, already provide a substitute for it. It represents the lemma a second time after its initial quotation, in its state as raw semiotic evidence, or in its ‘uninterpreted’ state. Furthermore, if, as here and elsewhere, the Masoretic information relates to several biblical passages at the same time (Gen 2:4 and Ruth 4:18), then it helps to set up a kind of linking of biblical locations that is often found in rabbinic

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

162

Alex Samely

hermeneutics. The linking of two or more passages is one of the most productive mechanisms of rabbinic interpretation, allowing the creation of paraphrases of biblical meaning which exceed the information available from only one passage.22 Relating this observation to a point made earlier, namely that a considerable proportion of Masoretic notes concern the ‘number of occurrences’ of a particular sign, one can see that there is a ready-made function for Masoretic information within those midrashic units that involve multiple biblical passages. Masoretic links stating that a sign is differently constituted or the same in a number of biblical passages can become the evidence for complex midrashic units using several passages read in the light of each other. The same goes for information on the number of occurrences of a particular word within a continuous biblical section, for example, GenR 36:4 to Gen 9:20 – 25 taking as its evidential starting point the Masorah-style observation that the waw consecutive, here interpreted as way = ‘woe,’ occurs fourteen times in the ‘section of wine’.23 In such pairings or multiples of biblical passages, the information which in Masoretic sources is found in the Mm comes into its own, namely the actual biblical verses implied in the figures of the Mp. There are also cases where the number of occurrences, somewhat like above in case A the numeric value of a plene letter, is directly linked to an object or theme for which that number is characteristic and produces some hermeneutic result. By contrast, the following passage deals only with one location: [B] LevR 23:10:24 There were three who fled from transgression and with whom the Holy One, blessed be He, united His name [as a testimony of their chastity]: Joseph, Jael and Palti. …Whence of Jael? From the fact that it says, “And Jael went out to meet Sisera… and she covered him with a semikah” (Judg 4:18).25 What is the meaning of “with a semikah”? Our Rabbis here [= Palestine] say it means with a sudara (‘scarf ’), while our Rabbis there [Babylonia] say it means with a ‘cloak.’ Resh Laqish said: We have searched the whole of Scripture and have not found any implement whose name is “semikah.” What then is “semikah”?26 “Sin/shin” is written, thus shemi koh, “my name is here” (i. e., in the name “Yael”). My name testifies regarding her that this wicked one did not touch her. 22 See A. Samely, Forms of Rabbinic Literature and Thought. An Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 178 – 184. 23 See Mart†n-Contreras, “Terminolog†a masor¦tica,” 349 – 350. 24 M. Margolioth (ed.), Midrash Wayyiqra Rabbah (5 vols.; Jerusalem: American Academy of Jewish Research, 1956), 3:542. See also C. Milikowsky and M. Schlüter’s online synoptic edition of Wayyiqra’ Rabbah, http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/midrash/VR (accessed 24/08/10). The English partly follows the Soncino translation: Midrash Rabbah: Leviticus, trans. J. Israelstam and J. J. Slotki (Chapters 20 – 37) (London: Soncino, 1939), 300. 25 Brown, Driver and Briggs, The New Hebrew, 970: “rug or thick coverlet (?);” the word is a hapax legomenon. BHS indicates two manuscripts spelling the word with samek rather than sin. 26 Here the manuscript tradition splits into two: most use the spelling with sin, but some

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Some Literary Features of Midrashic and Masoretic Statements

163

It is clear that we have at a crucial point of this complex argument the kind of meta-textual observation which could easily find itself in some Masoretic note, namely that the term semikah is spelled with a sin/sˇin sign; and it is indeed found both in the Mp for Judg 4:18 and in the Mm.27 The observation that this word, sounding semikah, is spelled with a sin, is entirely preparatory in the overall midrashic unit, which takes it to indicate that the sound sh (sˇ) is not excluded by the biblical text, and thereby leading to a new paraphrase, “my name is here” – the third meaning substitute for the biblical sign after scarf and cloak. The whole discussion is meaning-oriented, and thus oriented towards the question what the world might be that the biblical words project. The objective reality of semikah is the topic of the rabbinic statements. So that, as comment statements, they have an orientation towards the object as well as discussing the biblical signs as signs. By contrast, the sentence containing the spelling observation is entirely metatextual and, on its own, offers no object information, that is, no information on what the text actually means. So the Masorah-style meta-textual observation can function as a bridge from the biblical proposition, as it appears at first sight (‘scarf/cloak’), to the biblical proposition as expressed in the ultimate paraphrase (‘my name is here’). The spelling observation constitutes part of a warrant or argument for the paraphrase. It draws attention to a certain feature of the evidence for other statements. Generally speaking, it highlights the biblical evidence either by repeating an even smaller part of it than is given in the lemmatic quotation which opens the midrashic unit, or by actually describing the constitution of a sign as sign, as here. This is also what happens in the passage above on toledot and is perhaps typical, where Masoretic information, insofar as it is exclusively meta-textual, appears in rabbinic texts as part of a midrashic discourse. In any case, [A] and [B] illustrate the first scenario envisaged above, (i). Turning to the second scenario, my next example is a stand-alone quotationcomment unit which contains a qere case:

replace it with samek (followed by Margolioth), in preparation for the emphasis on sin/sˇin that follows. See Milikowsky and Schlüter. 27 See also Kelley, Mynatt and Crawford, The Masorah, 183. The Mp even makes the point that there is no other occurrence of this word, equivalent to the midrashic “we have searched the whole of Scripture (miqra’)…” L has in its Mp: ’M ’N?9 ’@; in its Mm it repeats the biblical word, followed by : E C=LK9 ’M ’N? ’=, and an enumeration of passages.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

164

Alex Samely

[C] GenR 34:8, ad Gen 8:17:28 “Bring forth (4J98) with you every living thing that is with you…” R. Judan said: “hos. e’” is written, “hays. e’” is read (4J=8 =LK RN? 4J98).29

There is no further comment attaching to this particular quoted segment of biblical text; this is all Genesis Rabbah has to say about the sentence “Bring forth with you every living thing.” (There follows a quotation-comment unit dealing with Gen 8:17b, a separate sentence.) In other words, the meta-textual observation attributed to R. Judan, which contrasts ketiv and qere30 as the comment component within a quotation-comment format, constitutes a fully independent, stand-alone unit within the lemmatic progress of units in Genesis Rabbah. It appears that there is therefore no paraphrastic information contained in this unit, except that, as discussed above, ketiv-qere observations are capable of being interpreted as implicitly constituting a paraphrastic message. This is clearly happening here. Since nothing more follows, and in the light of the wider environment, the insistence on the qere also becomes a statement of meaning – albeit one that is not explained, and whose import puzzles modern and mediaeval commentators.31 There is a significant manuscript variant for this passage. In manuscript Vatican 60 (facsimile pagination 117), only the ketiv is given; no contrast with a qere is expressed by R. Judan.32 This quotation-comment unit can, formally speaking, be understood to continue the hermeneutic labour of the surrounding midrashic quotationcomment units because the Masoretic information of qere is inherently, as we said above, providing a substitute for the sign it relates to. It does so precisely because the Mp sign is ‘different’ from the MTsign, opening up the possibility of 28 Midrash Bereshit Rabba, 316. 29 The vocalization in the transliteration follows, in the first occurrence, the Masoretic pointing; Brown, Driver and Briggs (The New Hebrew, 424) treat this imperative form under the vocalization hos. e’, noting the qere. 30 The Mp of L. has ’K 4J=8. See. Mart†n-Contreras, “Comments on Textual Details: Relationship between Masorah and Midrash,” JJS 54 (2003), 62 – 70, esp. 66. 31 See the summary of comments in Midrash Rabbah: Genesis, 271 n. 2 and Midrash Bereshit, 316. 32 Midrash Bereshit Rabbah. Codex Vatican 60 (Ms. Vat. Ebr. 60), page index by A. F. Sherry (Jerusalem: Makor, 1972). This manuscript was not used in the Theodor and Albeck edition. Ms Vatican 30 has the text as quoted above; Midrash Bereshit Rabbah MS Vat Ebr. 30. With an Introduction and Index by M. Sokoloff (Jerusalem: Makor, 1970), fol. 35b bottom. Cases where there is only an insistence on the ketiv in the sense of the written MTrequire their own analysis. For a case of insistence on the ketiv, but leading to a hermeneutic spelling-out of the meaning, see GenR 36:4 mentioned below under case [E]. Similar to some cases of ’en ketiv ’ela’, such spelled-out oppositions need to be considered within the wider framework of oppositional interpretations in rabbinic hermeneutics. See A. Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 278 – 302; E. Mart†n-Contreras, “El principio hermen¦utico ’Þn ket„b ka’n ’el·la’ en Mekilta de Rabbi Yisˇmael,” Sefarad 65 (2005), 85 – 102.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Some Literary Features of Midrashic and Masoretic Statements

165

a difference to the ‘surface’ meaning of MT. This is not the same for passages where only the ketiv is repeated, but no alternative is spelled out, as in ms. Vatican 60 for this case, and more generally a number of other passages in Genesis Rabbah, although even there it can be correct to assume that a tacit alternative, sometimes known to us from the occurrence of a Masoretic qere in Masoretic sources, is implied. So the description of the proper biblical sign is in [C] endowed with the capability to function as a discourse on ‘meaning,’ partly because of its midrashic co-text and partly because the Masoretic statement itself substitutes a new sign for the MT sign, and thus involves a potential meaning difference, a paraphrase. The Masoretic statement of a qere offers itself up in the midrashic literary setting as an explanation of what the biblical text ‘means,’ not only how it is to be read (its sound-scape equivalent), or what its graphic evidence is actually constituted as. Finally, an example for an exclusively meta-textual quotation-comment unit which has Masoretic information and stands alone, that is, scenario iii) in the above list: [D] GenR 34:8, ad Gen 8:19:33 “Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, whatsoever moves (MB9L @?) upon the earth:” R. Aibu said: Kol romes is written fully (4@B MB9L @?).34

The word romes is repeated twice in the sentence, and the second time spelled with a waw. The repetition of the whole phrase in R. Aibu’s statement, including the kol without an article, shows which occurrence of the repeated root MBL is meant. Like the qere case above, this is a stand-alone unit. But unlike the earlier case, this statement does not allow itself to be taken as offering a substitute meaning, for it merely spells out the graphic constitution of the biblical text itself, and thus stresses the evidence base, as if in preparation for a paraphrase. But no paraphrase follows immediately to which it could be seen as preparing the evidence. The next sentence in Genesis Rabbah is about the next biblical lemma. Some Genesis Rabbah commentators speculate that this observation on plene spelling relates to a subsequent midrashic unit in which castration of animals is said to have been prohibited to the children of Noah.35 But whether they are correct or not, the commentators’ need to look for more and other things, beyond what this particular quotation-comment unit actually provides, confirms what I said above about cases of iii). Units that are stand-alone yet exclusively meta-textual are conspicuous in a midrashic environment because they function differently from most midrashic units. Their relationship to 33 Midrash Bereshit Rabba, 316. 34 Ms Vatican 30 also has ketiv after male’ and has no Rabbi’s name. 35 Midrash Rabbah: Genesis, 271, n. 3.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

166

Alex Samely

Scripture is thus different, despite having the same overall format, namely a quotation-comment format, that midrashic units also have; despite being capable of being introduced by rabbinic speaker, as in [C] and [D]; and despite coming at the ‘right’ place in the succession of biblical lemmata that provides the basic rhythm of a midrashic commentary. Although diachronic issues are not my topic here, it is worth pointing out that GenR 34:8 is unusual in having two stand-alone ‘Masoretic’ pieces of information in close proximity, given how rare such passages are in the texts of Midrash. One of them, [D], is definitely conspicuous in the sense of my scenario iii), the other, [C], is potentially so, and they are only separated by two very brief midrashic units. In other words, it is possible that a ‘Masoretic’-type source was used by the maker of Genesis Rabbah at this point. We have now seen examples of three ways in which information that could be interpreted as being ‘Masoretic’ can appear in a midrashic context: - Exclusively meta-textual, but integrated as evidence into a midrashic unit, in cases [A] and [B]. - Not exclusively meta-textual or not necessarily so, and presented as a standalone unit in the progress of the commentary through the sequence of biblical lemmata, in case [C]. - Exclusively meta-textual and presented as a stand-alone unit in the progress of the commentary through the sequence of biblical lemmata, in case [D]. But is the topic of much Masoretic information, namely the precise linguistic or graphic constitution of the biblical signs, not of the same kind as the topics of midrashic units, even when there is no sign of a Masoretic terminology or coincidence with the contents of Masoretic sources? They are indeed, and so the question arises: Does every midrashic passage that draws attention to the details of the biblical text and language, by this reason alone, have a component of ‘Masoretic information’? This would mean that large swaths of midrashic hermeneutics imply Masoretic perspectives. It seems to me that the following observation on form may be helpful in drawing some of the necessary distinctions here. The kind of Masoretic information I have postulated to be most clearly distinct from midrashic hermeneutics is exclusively meta-textual; but even where it is not exclusively meta-textual, it is always explicitly meta-textual. It involves putting into words or numbers a perception of how the biblical signs are constituted, distributed or rewritten for pronunciation. This goes for the elliptical and deictic relationship between Mp and the main biblical text column; and it goes for the cases where such information is found in other literary contexts, such as midrashic texts, in the form of comment statements. I suggest that in many midrashic units the constitution, distribution or rewriting of biblical signs is indeed also highlighted, but not put into words or numbers, and

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Some Literary Features of Midrashic and Masoretic Statements

167

that this is a decisive difference to the basic Masoretic format of meta-textual information. Let us look at an example of a midrashic unit which clearly engages with the specific constitution of a biblical sign, but does not actually spell out that constitution. In Deut 13:17, the phrase ˇselalah, ‘its spoil’ is used, the ‘it’ referring back to the city mentioned before, namely the apostate city. We find a midrashic unit in SifreDeut 95, and also in m. Sanh 10:6, which places a heavy stress on this suffix he, ‘its’ spoil. This is a typical midrashic contrast interpretation,36 stressing the phrase ‘its spoil’ to establish a contrast to a meaning thereby excluded, namely the ‘spoil of heaven’ (sˇelal ˇsamayim), Temple property. In the Mishnaic version, the midrashic unit reads as follows: [E] m. Sanh 10:6: “And all its spoil be a whole offering to the Lord your God” (Deut 13:17) – [meaning,] ‘its’ spoil and not the spoil of heaven. From this they said: The holy things that are within it are to be redeemed, and heave offering to be burned; second tithe and holy writings are to be hidden.

This interpretation of ˇselalah deals with exactly the sort of detail of the biblical text which, in theory, could become thematic for the Masorah as well: the suffix he at the end of the word. Thus the Masorah takes an interest in final hes when there is a question of them being the older masculine suffix, and that too can occur in Midrashic sources alongside an object language paraphrase, e. g., GenR 36:4 ad Gen 9:21.37 But the mere existence of a feminine suffix he, as in Sifre Deut. 95 and m. Sanh 10:6, appears not a typically Masoretic topic, at least not on its own, and it is perhaps no surprise to find that BHS and L have no Mp for this passage and word. But, apart from an ‘intuition’ of what is a typically Masoretic topic, is there any real difference between this midrashic passage and the passages we have considered up to this point where Masoretic sources do indeed overlap with midrashic sources? I think there is, along the lines suggested a moment ago. The midrashic unit here very clearly draws attention to the constitution of a sign, namely the suffix he, in contrast to a different construction altogether, or a masculine suffix, or perhaps the absence of a suffix, etc. But this ‘drawing attention’ does not take the form of a dedicated description of the linguistic-graphic evidence, an articulation of the textual facts. There is no formulation here that spells out the fact that this word has a he suffix; nothing in the comment statement – “its spoil and not the spoil of heaven” – is dedicated to the task of describing the textual evidence, 36 See Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation, chp 11, 278 ff., “The Perspectives of Opposition”; my hermeneutic commentary on this passage may be found at http://mishnah.llc.manchester.ac. uk/detail.aspx?id=492. (accessed 17/07/2014). 37 Midrash Bereshit Rabba, 338; see Mart†n-Contreras, “Comments on Textual Details,” 66 f.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

168

Alex Samely

as in cases [A] to [D]. It operates as a contrast on the level of objects (the city’s spoil, not the heavenly spoil), and its emphasis on the final he, meta-linguistic as it is, is produced by that opposition. In other words, the very content of the comment statement is different from cases where Masoretic information is subservient to a hermeneutic engagement, as in [A] and [B]; where it constitutes the hermeneutic engagement, as possibly in [C]; or where it constitutes no hermeneutic engagement, as in [D], but provides a description of the textual evidence. The absence of a verbal component within the midrashic unit dedicated to spelling out the textual evidence, be it as a whole clause or as a short phrase, may thus be considered a prime distinguishing factor between midrashic units that integrate or consist of ‘Masoretic’ information and midrashic units that do not and yet are meta-textual. This is separate from the question if, where such a spelling out occurs, its terms are typically Masoretic or have their technical Masoretic meaning. There are also many midrashic units which verbalize the constitution of the biblical text explicitly ; these are often the ones that name a so-called “hermeneutic technique” as mediating between the biblical evidence and the rabbinic paraphrase. For example, the term kelal u-ferat is such a statement of metatextual evidence: it asserts for two terms that stand in a semantic relationship of more general and less general meaning to each other, that the more general appears first in Scripture and the less general one later. Such cases require further investigation to determine if and how they differ in their nature from the exclusively meta-textual statements often found in Masoretic sources, and occasionally found in midrashic ones. But the greatest distance between Masoretic information and midrashic units appears to occur in the case illustrated by [E] above: meta-textual observations on the constitution of biblical signs are implied, but not stated in so many words. In cases [A] to [D], on the other hand, we have various types of overlap between the kinds of comment statements that dominate Masoretic sources and the kinds that dominate midrashic sources. The condition for this is the presence of some part of the midrashic unit which does address explicitly, in so many words, what the biblical textual evidence looks like. Then the differences emerge from the following analytical questions: does the statement combine with a biblical lemmatic quotation to constitute a stand-alone unit or not? If the latter, is it necessary to understand it as exclusively meta-textual or not? If integrated into a larger midrashic unit, is its function to restate the textual evidence upon which a midrashic paraphrase of the biblical object meaning is founded? Thus the following scale of ‘strength of Masoretic character’ emerges, independent of the kind of terminology that is used in the midrashic passages, and before one takes into account whether the same information also occurs in dedicated Masoretic sources. This grid is meant to classify quotation-comment units that occur in

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

169

Some Literary Features of Midrashic and Masoretic Statements

works of Midrash, as the environment in which Masoretic information may or may not occur in a recognizably Masoretic form. It takes into account content, that is, the nature of the comment statement; and form, that is, the question of whether the information is presented as a stand-alone unit or integrated into another quotation-comment unit. Strength of the prima facie Masoretic character of a quotation-comment unit by evidence of format and contents alone: Weakest Strongest A stand-alone quotationcomment unit contains no dedicated verbalization of the textual evidence, but has meta-textual format and function.

Many midrashic units; example [E].

4.

A stand-alone quotationcomment unit with an explicit statement that may have been meant ‘exclusively’ metatextual, but could also be addressing biblical meaning through a meta-textual format, e. g., certain qere cases. Midrashic units Midrashic Midrashic constituting units constitut- units conscenario ii) ing scenario i) stituting scenario i) above; above; example above (no exexamples [A] [C]. ample proand [B]. vided).

An explicit statement that may be, but need not be, ‘exclusively’ meta-textual, is integrated into a quotationcomment unit that leads to a hermeneutic restatement of biblical object meaning.

An explicit statement that has to be understood as being exclusively metatextual is integrated into a quotationcomment unit that leads to a hermeneutic restatement of biblical object meaning.

A stand-alone quotationcomment unit with an explicit statement that has to be understood as being exclusively metatextual.

Midrashic units without hermeneutic paraphrase, scenario iii) above; example [D].

Text Types: Object Orientation and Meta-Linguistic Orientation –Ostensive and Tacit

The distinction of object language from meta-language, which I introduced at the beginning of this paper, can be employed to distinguish text types in ancient Jewish literature. By way of placing the contrast between Midrash and Masorah drawn in this paper into a wider literary and historical context, I will now turn to the nature of whole texts. I will use the term ‘object orientation’ when speaking of a text dominated or framed by sentences that thematize only non-verbal objects. These texts tell a story, describe reality, discuss or promulgate law, pray, or

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

170

Alex Samely

exhort the reader to certain virtues. On the other hand, I will use the term ‘metatextual orientation’ for texts dominated by sentences that thematize the signs of another text. Examples of this include the dedicated Masoretic sources; but it also includes the exegetical Midrashim and texts like the Habakkuk Pesher. I have emphasized that the quotation-comment units usually found in Midrash, and also in Pesher, have ‘paraphrases’ as their comment statements. Their comment statements are often, like the biblical statement whose meaning they spell out, object statements, albeit usually elliptic ones. But as part of a quotation-comment unit, these object statements thematize the meaning of another statement, not directly any object or projected world. When a text that has an object orientation, as defined a moment ago, contains the statement “God created heaven first, and then he created the earth,” alongside similar statements, then this sentence is a description of the projected world. But if the same statement occurs as paraphrase of another sentence, as in the following usage: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth” means that God created heaven first, and then he created the earth,

then the underlined words do not describe how the world was created. Rather they describe another description of how the world was created, namely in the quoted text. This statement can, additionally, also be implicitly presented as something the interpreter holds true; but that can only be a secondary layer of meaning which, in order to become unequivocal, requires additional verbal matter, such as “And Scripture is correct,” or “And that is indeed what happened,” etc. As it is, the comment statement is just as compatible with a continuation like, “But science proves otherwise.” The only explicit claim made in the quotation-comment above is that the second statement is a correct representation of the meaning of the first, not that either first or the second is a correct statement. Nevertheless, if the quoted text is considered to be accurate, as Scripture is in rabbinic discourse, then the paraphrase is at least sometimes meant as a valid statement in its own right, and there are some pointers in that direction in midrashic texts. But in any case, midrashic units tend to talk about the objects of Scripture as a means of talking about the words of Scripture. So midrashic texts are the prime example of texts that have a meta-textual, and thus also meta-linguistic, orientation; and the same goes for Qumran Pesharim and the Masorah. Ancient Jewish texts framed or dominated by object language statements, on the other hand, include all the biblical books, Jubilees, the Temple Scroll, the Genesis Apocryphon,38 the Community Rule, Tobit, 1 Maccabees and 2 Macca38 The latter two only as far as one can guess their overall literary shape from the incomplete extant evidence.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Some Literary Features of Midrashic and Masoretic Statements

171

bees, 4QMMT, the Mishnah and many others. Yet a large number of these books, such as Jubilees and Temple Scroll, are intimately related to another text, namely one or more of the ones today known as “biblical.” They are accordingly often categorized as “rewritten Bible,” “rewritten Scripture,” or “parabiblical.” They clearly have substantial passages that reflect the biblical wording in its detail, and thus have a genetic meta-textual dimension. In other words, they are partly the result of such an engagement with the biblical signs, and may well have been tacitly presented to their audiences as such a result. Yet the meta-linguistic orientation does not shape the format or literary surface of these texts, as it does the surface of exegetical Midrash, Pesher and the Masorah. It is a tacit dimension of these texts, and I shall therefore speak of a tacit meta-textual orientation, or a tacit meta-linguistic orientation. This tacit orientation goes hand in hand with an ostensive object orientation. For example, a work such as the Temple Scroll has an ostensive object orientation, namely spells out how God wants Israel to act, but a tacit meta-textual orientation, namely engaging with many specific formulations of laws in the Pentateuch which were given detailed consideration in the creation of the Temple Scroll’s own wording.39 Conversely, I shall also speak of a tacit object orientation for certain works that have an ostensive metalinguistic or meta-textual orientation. This is likely to apply to the works of Midrash. As mentioned above, there is evidence for saying that midrashic paraphrases of biblical meaning were often meant to have their own validity as object claims, and thereby they create a tacit object orientation for works of Midrash.40 How does one know if a text has a tacit meta-linguistic orientation going hand in hand with an ostensive object orientation? Let us consider as examples the Temple Scroll and Jubilees. These texts often reproduce the biblical wording to such an extent, and with meaning differences so obviously deliberate, that it is impossible to conceive of the overlap of wording as accidental. We must assume a historical, compositional connection between these texts and the books of the Pentateuch. We do not necessarily know immediately which way round the compositional dependency goes: was the text we now call biblical first, or the other one? But we cannot deny that either the one or the other must have been at least to some extent the outcome of a tacit meta-linguistic engagement with the other text.41 The same goes for the Targums in their reflection of the wording of

39 I am assuming here that the Temple Scroll used texts today known as Pentateuch, rather than the other way round. See below on the question of priority. 40 For the special case of midrashic units in the Mishnah, see Samely, Rabbinic Interpretation, 303 – 327. 41 The diachronic reversibility of dependency is only possible because neither text acknowledges the existence of the other on its surface: they have an equally profound object

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

172

Alex Samely

the biblical text, rendered into another language. All these works speak about their objects/themes as if from self-acquired knowledge, in contrast to works, for example those dominated by midrashic units, that speak about objects only through ostensively speaking about the words of another text. The second text imitates the attitude of the earlier one of speaking about objects, not words, sometimes also imitating closely the earlier text’s perspective or point of view. Despite this, any interpreter with access to both texts can recognize the extensive overlap in wording as deliberate. The words used are manifestly the result of repeating, paraphrasing or translating words-in-context already used in the earlier text, either in part or in their entirety, the latter in certain kinds of translation. Thus the exclusive object linguistic orientation on the surface of such texts goes hand in hand with the tacit meta-textual orientation. Now let us understand this tacit meta-textual orientation not as a fact about the genesis of the second text, but as a synchronic characteristic of that text in timeless comparison with the first. Although only a comparison of works from a historical perspective can verify the presence of a tacit meta-textual orientation, it does become part of the very literary characteristics of the text so understood. It is also entirely possible, as manifest in the use of the Targums in rabbinic culture, that the texts were, in their own historical context, understood to have such a tacit meta-textual orientation. It is one of the key historical questions in the study of some of the so-called Pseudepigrapha or works of Rewritten Scripture to what extent the tacit meta-textual orientation they have was “taken as read” by their original audiences. But the classification here suggested is independent of this historical question. If we now employ the parameters, object versus metatextual orientation and tacit versus ostensive, to populate a grid with examples from the ancient Jewish literature, including the Masoretic sources, the following picture emerges:

Orientation of texts: Examples of Jewish texts: Jubilees Temple Scroll

No metatextual orientation

Tacit metatextual orientation p p

Ostensive meta-textual orientation

Ostensive object orientation

Tacit object orientation

No object orientation

p p

orientation, which is capable of entirely masking the meta-textual one. Without external comparison of texts it would be hard or impossible to detect.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

173

Some Literary Features of Midrashic and Masoretic Statements

(Continued) Orientation of texts: Examples of Jewish texts: Tobit, Judith, 1 – 2 Maccabees Sirach

No metatextual orientation

p

p p

p p

Probably p p43

p

p44

p

p

p

p

p [ ]45

(uncertain)46

No object orientation

Probably p

p p

Tacit object orientation

Probably p42

p

Mekhilta

4QMMT

Ostensive object orientation

p

Sifra

Mishnah Sefer Yetsirah

Ostensive meta-textual orientation

p

Targum Pesher

Leviticus Rabbah homily Masorah parva and related sources

Tacit metatextual orientation

Possible for a minority, but uncertain

p

For a majority

p p

42 Rather than ‘no’ object language orientation, the next column to the right; this goes for all three rows. The reasons for this are in my view convincing, but cannot be addressed here. 43 In contrast to the exegetical Midrashim, the rabbinic homily has a communicative-thematic format which in itself foregrounds thematic concerns, so that midrashic units within the homily appear to have a much clearer object orientation. This starts with the hermeneutics of the Petihah, which is manifestly about the meaning of biblical events, while also employing ˙ meta-textual observations and paraphrases; and where the homily opens with a Yelammedenu, its object orientation is also emphasized. Something similar goes for the Hatimah in its ˙ functional place as the (thematically defined) conclusion of the homily. 44 This is not to deny that the Mishnah presupposes biblical information at many points. The nature of that engagement is, however, much too free to allow classifying the Mishnah as having a tacit meta-textual orientation. 45 This column only applies in the sense that the means of creation (and thus the text’s themes) happen to be signs, e. g., letters and numbers. 46 It is hard to judge, given the fragmentary nature of the Miqs. at Ma’aseh Ha-Torah, what status

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

174 (Continued) Orientation of texts: Examples of Jewish texts: Tosefta in relation to the Mishnah

Alex Samely

No metatextual orientation

Tacit metatextual orientation p

Ostensive meta-textual orientation

Ostensive object orientation

Tacit object orientation

No object orientation

p

It emerges from this selective overview that dedicated Masoretic sources may constitute the only texts dominated by statements which do not even have a tacit object orientation. In displaying the possibly unique character of Masoretic sources, the table also highlights the crucial role which object orientation plays in the rest of the ancient Jewish literature, despite the fact that so much of it speaks in the first instance about Scripture, rather than about the world. Every non-Masoretic source in the table has an object orientation of some kind, and yet, most rows contain works that are in some sense engaged with the biblical text. The works which have an ostensive object orientation but not even a tacit meta-textual orientation are of two kinds: the Mishnah on the one hand (probably also 4QMMT), and on the other hand certain books that became the Apocrypha of the Christian Old Testament, sampled in particular in row 3. These emerge actually as a very interesting category of works, for the very reason that they lack even a tacit sustained orientation towards the structures and words of Scripture. But tacit or ostensive, object orientation is clearly vital for the anonymous or pseudepigraphic ancient Jewish literature represented in the Table, and the picture would perhaps not change dramatically if the two key authored oeuvres from the same period were included, those of Josephus and Philo. The Masorah, on the other hand, finds its place at the other extreme. Much of the Masoretic information cannot be interpreted as having any kind of object orientation. From this narrow perspective, therefore, the status of the Masorah shows itself to be unique.

any engagement with the biblical text within it may have had. But it appears to have been comparable to that of the Mishnah, see n. 44.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Willem F. Smelik University College London, United Kingdom

Targum & Masorah. Does Targum Jonathan Follow the ‘Madinhae’ Readings of Ketiv-Qere?1

To date no consensus exists about the provenance and dialect of the so-called Babylonian targumim, Onqelos and Jonathan. Admittedly, the consensus holds sway that these targumim were composed in the West but redacted in the East, neatly accommodating arguments in favour of either provenance, but in point of fact no one knows exactly when this redaction took place, and the argument is often repeated without further scrutiny. One argument in favour of the consensus is based on the differences between the western and eastern ketiv-qere readings and the light they (may, might, allegedly) shed on the vexed question of the provenance and textual history of the Targum to the Prophets (TgJon). In a reversal of the usual interest, the very reason even for compiling the Masorah to begin with, the Masorah is now taken as evidence for the location where the Targum may have been composed. The question is far from new.2 Already in the nineteenth century, Simcha Pinsker analysed the agreements between TgJon and either the oriental or western qere and argued that the Targum tends to follow the eastern readings, which lends support to its eastern provenance – although he left the answer open whether this includes the composition or just the final redaction. Yehuda Komlosh concurred and defended the agreement between TgJon and the oriental qere. Robert Gordis, finally, found that his observations tend to support Pinsker, as he only found four western readings, all of which are in the Former Prophets. Gordis surmised that the agreement of TgJon with the oriental readings may at 1 It is a pleasure to thank the organisers of the Symposium for all their meticulous work and efforts, and to extend my gratefulness to the participants for their comments on my paper. 2 S. Pinsker, Einleitung in das babylonisch-hebräische Punktationssystem (Vienna: Phillip Bendiner, 1863), 124; Y. Komlosh, “98=BL= A96LN,” Bar-Ilan 7 – 8 (1969), 38 – 48, esp. 42; id., A96LN8 L945 4LKB8 (Dvir : Tel Aviv, 1973), 408 – 409; R. Gordis, The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere. Augmented Edition with a Prolegomenon (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1971), 74 – 75, 159 – 166. Note that some instances are not listed in Gordis’s appendix, but mentioned in his discussion. On the ketiv-qere, see further E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2d ed. rev.; Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress Press/Royal Van Gorcum, 2001), 58 – 63.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

176

Willem F. Smelik

least betray the editorial activity of transmitters in the Babylonian schools – the few instances of western readings in TgJon, he argues, are the sole surviving traces of its original composition in the West before the final redaction in the East. His is an example of circular reasoning not unknown in Targum Studies, where the discussion about the dialect and provenance of Onqelos and Jonathan remains as vexed as ever. A reexamination of the evidence, then, is clearly required.

1.

Previous Studies

The desirability of a fresh study of the agreements between TgJon and the eastern readings may be illustrated by typical flaws in previous research by Pinsker, Komlosh and Gordis. Neither of these authors elaborates on the method of comparison, which is most unfortunate. Komlosh, in fact, only lists three examples; Pinsker just a few more; and only Gordis attempted a comprehensive investigation. Komlosh’s example, the fourth reading adduced by Gordis, is a difficult case. Komlosh and Gordis agree in their analysis of Jer 6:6 as certain evidence for an eastern reading in TgJon: MT 85LK5 KMF 8@? 7KH8 L=F8 4=8 TgJon 8965 C=E9D4 C98@9? 4859; 8@ 97=KHN47 4NLK 4=8 EQ: 9@? / EK: 8@? / WK: 8@? / TgJon: C98@9?.3

In MT, the feminine suffix refers to Jerusalem, while the masculine refers to ‘oppression.’ Or does it? The Hebrew verse has what appear to be incongruities, for 7K(H!8) should have been in the feminine. TgJon has a plural suffix, which is masculine – but the feminine third plural suffix is extremely rare in its dialect, and the masculine used routinely in its place. In any case, the Targum refers to a silent antecedent, namely the inhabitants of the city. Can we say TgJon reflects the masculine third person singular suffix? No, for it is the plural, it may serve for the feminine, and the antecedents are confusing in both source and target text. Allowing room for doubt in the case of Komlosh’s second example, which is to be discussed below (Jer 33:3), his third case, Jer 48:41, cannot be maintained – indeed, Gordis does not include it among his certain examples, although without further explanation:4 3 EQ: eastern qere; EK: eastern ketiv ; WK: western ketiv. 4 Gordis (The Biblical Text, 104, 159) lists the example among those where the ketiv has an archaic ending of the feminine third person plural perfect. On this ending, see P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (2 vols.; Sub. Bi. 14:1; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996), 1:133.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

177

Targum & Masorah

MT TgJon EQ: 9MHND / EK: 8MHND / WK: 8MHND / TgJon: C7;4N=.5

8MHND N97JB89 N9=LK8 87?@D C7;4N= 4N7JB9 4?L? M=5?N=

One category of ketiv-qere readings concerns a variation between singular and plural verbs, and a subset of these are among the differences between eastern and western readings. At face value TgJon supports the plural here, hence agrees with the eastern qere only. The significance of this reading, however, is greatly reduced once we factor in TgJon’s strategy as regards singular and plural verbal forms. Although Pinkhos Churgin claimed that TgJon tends to avoid disparity in number between subject and verb, Alexander Sperber already demonstrated that numerous exceptions to this rule exist.6 It is in fact one of the training techniques among rhetorics to change the number of a given text, as acknowledged by the Tosefta (t. Meg 3:41). While far more comprehensive, the analysis of Gordis does not fare much better despite the fact that he cites fifteen (rather than three) instances as certain evidence for the hypothesis that TgJon follows the eastern text. Three linguistic errors among these fifteen cases will suffice to cast doubt on his conclusions. The first concerns 2 Sam 6:23: MT TgJon EQ: 7@= / EK: 7@9 / WK: 7@= / TgJon: 7@9.

8N9B A9= 7F 7@= 8@ 8=8 4@ @94M N5 @?=B@9 8N9B A9= 7F 7@9 8@ 898 4@ @94M N5 @?=B@9

In Gordis’s opinion, this reading ‘certainly’ reflects the eastern text. However, Aramaic simply has no 7@= as the eastern qere and western ketiv do, and with one exception TgJon provides the translation 7@9 whatever the spelling in its exemplar might have been. The rare exceptions in Aramaic merely show the influence of Hebrew. On one occasion TgJon speaks of 79LB =7@= ‘children of rebellion’ (Isa 57:4), and SamTg likewise once reads 7@= 8@ N=@ ‘she has no child’ p (Gen 11:30). The derivates of 7@= in Jewish Aramaic dialects as well as Syriac and Christian Palestinian Aramaic all may represent Hebrew influence.7 An example of unacceptable evidence is Ezek 17:14, which Gordis considers to provide certain evidence for TgJon’s adherence to the eastern qere: 5 Elision in Eb22: C7;N=. 6 P. Churgin, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets (YOS 14; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1907 [=1927]; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1983); A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic (5 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1959 – 1973), 4b:61 – 67, 90 – 92, 99 – 102, 147 – 148; E. van StaalduineSulman, The Targum of Samuel (vol. 1 of Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 101. 7 See M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat-Gan/Baltimore-London: Bar Ilan University Press/The John Hopkins University Press, 2002), 395; A. Tal, A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic (HdO; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 346.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

178

Willem F. Smelik

MT 87BF@ 9N=L5 N4 LBM@ 4MDN8 =N@5@ 8@HM 8?@BB N9=8@ TgJon 8=;@HB@ 8=B=K N= Lü=B@ 45L5LN4@ 4@7 @=75 4M@; 9?@B =98B@ EQ: 97BF@ / EK: 87BF@ / WK: 87BF@ / TgJon: 8=;@HB; 8=B=K.

While TgJon indeed shares with the eastern qere a masculine third person pronoun attached to the infinitive, this is only to be expected because the antecedent in TgJon is masculine – whereas N=L5 is feminine in Hebrew. Whatever TgJon was following here is lost in translation. A further example in Judg 13:17, where Gordis claims that TgJon ‘certainly’ read the western text is puzzling: MT TgJon EQ: ý)L!5)7! / EK: ý)=Lú5!7% / WK: ý)=Lú5!7% / TgJon ýB)6) NH%.

ý9D75?9 ý=L57 45= =? ýDLK=D9 ýB6NH C9B==KN= =L4

However, the Aramaic noun may be both singular and plural. In any case, there are not only quite a few eastern manuscripts which adopt the reading known ). Hence the reading from the qere, but LXX and Pes agree (t¹ N/l² sou, may well be contextual.

2.

Categories of Agreement

The list of differences between the western and eastern ketiv-qere readings amounts to 111 instances as listed by Gordis. Since in 14 instances, variant readings in TgJon change the category, the total number of cases discussed here is 124.8 For my purposes, they may be categorized as follows: 1) TgJon = Inconclusive: A large number of instances do not yield any result in the comparison with the Aramaic translation. Note that in other cases, where readings in TgJon might seem to yield another result, we still have to ask ourselves whether they could not have been brought about by either translational strategies or extant exegetical traditions. Total: 42 cases.9 8 In Jer 22:14, J. Ribera-Florit (Targum Jonat‚n de los Profetas Posteriores en tradiciûn babilûnica: Jerem†as [Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 52; Madrid: Instituto de Filolog†a del CSIC, 1992], 146) cites @=@B9 as the reading in Eb22. This must be a typo, which is in any case not found in J. Ribera-Florit, Targum Jonat‚n de los Profetas Posteriores en tradiciûn babilûnica: Ezequiel (Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 62; Madrid: Instituto de Filolog†a del CSIC, 1997), 42: @=@üB9. 9 Josh 7:21; 24:8; Judg 6:25; 11:31; 13:17; 1 Sam 18:25; 2 Sam 3:35; 6:23; 1 Kgs 10:22; Isa 27:6; Jer 6:6; 8:4; 17:4; 22:14; 32:11.34; 37:19; 45:1; 51:59; Ezek 1:13; 9:8; 16:29; 17:11.14; 18:20; 22:13; 23:19.46; 30:18 Mss; 36:5; 43:26; 46:6(2x).21; Hos 10:11; Joel 2:22; 4:7; Mic 5:1; Nah 2:12; 3:8; Hab 3:19; Zeph 3.11. The marker ‘Mss’ behind a reference indicates that the reading is found in a variant of TgJon.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Targum & Masorah

179

2) TgJon = eastern qere = western ketiv: Another set of examples has TgJon follow the eastern qere, which would have been interesting were it not for the fact that the western ketiv actually agrees with the eastern qere, hence the provenance of the targumic reading, and the question whether it follows the qere or not, hangs in the balance. Total: 46 cases.10 3) TgJon = eastern ketiv = western ketiv : A third set of examples concerns those readings where TgJon follows the eastern ketiv which agrees with the western ketiv. If upheld, these examples negate the notion that TgJon follows the qere. Total: 8 cases.11 4) TgJon = eastern ketiv ¼ 6 western ketiv : More promising are those readings where TgJon agrees with the eastern ketiv, which is unlike the western one. Total: 13 cases.12 5) TgJon = eastern qere ¼ 6 western ketiv: Equally interesting are examples of agreement between TgJon and the eastern qere, while the western ketiv disagrees. Total: 14 cases.13 6) TgJon ¼ 6 eastern qere ¼ 6 eastern ketiv = western ketiv: Finally, it should be noted that a further group, where TgJon agrees with the western ketiv but disagrees with both the eastern ketiv and the eastern qere is theoretically possible, but no listings exist. No cases. Before turning to the evidence, we should note that the entire exercise makes certain assumptions about the possibility that TgJon could follow certain qerereadings, although these have been left unspoken by previous scholars. It is questionable whether the translators had a physical manuscript with ketiv-qere readings in its text in the way the later Masoretes would incorporate them in their copies. The ketiv-qere readings do not occur as such in the Dead Sea scrolls, and while the practice is known from Amoraic sources,14 it is far from certain that the readings were already included in the texts themselves. Prima facie, the Aramaic translations, which served as an antiphonal text in the oral delivery of Miqra and Targum, would be expected to follow the qere if the practice had been established by the time of composition or redaction of TgJon. Generally speaking, it has been 10 2 Kgs 25:12; Josh 6:5; 8:12; 15:53; Judg 8:3; 1 Sam 15:6; 2 Kgs 14:13 Mss; 17:4; 18:29 Mss; Isa 23:12 Mss; 38:14; 57:10; Jer 9:21; 22:16; 26:24; 28:17; 29:7; 33:3 Mss; 36:23(2x); 49:12.19; Ezek 11:7; 14:17; 16:46.48; 18:2; 21:19; 26:17; 30:18; 32:16; 40:2.3.25; 42:8; 44:3; 46:8; 48:28; Hos 4:12; 13:9; 14:5; Joel 1:12; Nah 3:11; Zeph 2:7; Zech 4:10; Mal 3:22. 11 Josh 8:13; Judg 8:22; Jer 29:22 Mss; 32:12; 48:31; Ezek 14:17 Mss; Amos 9:7; Mic 6:5. 12 1 Sam 25:27; 2 Kgs 14:13; 18:29; Isa 23:12(2x); 38:14 Mss; Jer 33:3; 36:23 Mss (see below, under 3,1); 45:4; Joel 1:12 (1st); 1:12(2nd) Mss; Zeph 3:7; Zech 13:7. 13 Josh 3:17; 8:13 Mss; Judg 1:21; 18:9; 1 Sam 4:15; Jer 29:22; 48:41; 51:29; Ezek 5:11; 13:2.17; 22:4; 32:26; Amos 9:7 Mss. 14 See Tov, Textual Criticism, 59.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

180

Willem F. Smelik

accepted that TgJon indeed follows the qere.15 Yet such generalizations are the problem, and there are notable exceptions to the rule. More importantly, agreement in form is not tantamount to ‘support’ for the qere because the agreement may have arisen through independent but comparable processes of thought (‘polygenesis’). A further complication arises when we consider the possible origin of the eastern ketiv-qere. The dichotomy of western and eastern locations, so essential for the question regarding TgJon’s provenance, may break down if some of these readings in fact hark back to western traditions, as they well may, if indeed they originated in ancient collections of variant readings as many scholars assume they did.16 In conclusion, the very comparison between TgJon and qere-readings implies crucial but unverifiable assumptions about the exemplar and reading practice underlying the text of TgJon, calling the whole exercise in serious doubt. Only if the results very clearly fall to one side may the comparison even survive such inherent flaws. In the following analysis, I have taken the consistency of TgJon into account albeit without necessarily ‘expecting’ consistency throughout TgJon. The existence of a bilingual concordance does facilitate the comparison of various translational equivalences. I have also paid attention to translation strategies in TgJon, which qualify, and often exclude, certain instances. I have not discounted those examples in which the difference between qere and ketiv is that of two graphically very similar letters, hence can be accounted for by scribal error. It is possible that a reading in TgJon also came about as a result of an error in the exemplar. Since such evidence does not exist, and it would be unlikely that all such instances reflect Hebrew variant readings now lost to us, I have not discarded such instances. However, if the total of relevant cases turns out to be very small, such scepticism may have to given greater weight. Finally, the absence of exclusively western readings should be born in mind: the evidence only culls instances where the eastern qere differs; we have no comparable list of qere-readings which only occur in the western text.

15 See van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel, 707. 16 I am grateful to Philip Alexander for bringing this complication to my attention. For the assumptions about the origin of these readings, see Tov, Textual Criticism, 58 – 63.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

181

Targum & Masorah

3.

Results

Following the categories outlined above, with the exception of the last since there is no comparable list of differences as mentioned, we may summarize the findings as follows.

3.1.

No Result

Due to the different nature of source and target text, and their respective languages, there is a considerable body of examples that do not return any meaningful result: at least 40 examples out of 111 belong in this category.17 For example, in Ezek 18:20 we find the following: EQ: 4=8 / EK: 498 / WK: 4=8 / TgJon: 498. Although arguably TgJon agrees with the eastern ketiv, in reality this is not correct because the Hebrew antecedent, MHD, is feminine, but the Aramaic equivalent MD4 is masculine. A subtle case is found in Jer 36:23: MT

7F ;48 @4 LM4 M48 @4 ý@M89 LHE8 LFN5 8FLK= 8F5L49 N9N@7 M@M =798= 49LK? =8=9 ;48 @F LM4 M48 @F 8@6B8 @? AN TgJon @? NB=@M7 7F 4LB96@7 4L9D@ =BL9 4LHE @=B:45 F:5 F5L49 C=JH N@N =798= =LK 7? 8989 =LB96 @F7 4L9D @F 4N@=6B EQ: 8FLK= / EK: 8FLK9 / WK: 8FLK= / TgJon: F:( 5).

˘

The difference between the main text and the eastern qere is that between a repetitive action expressed by a yiqtol-form and a past tense expressed by the qatal (if the latter is not a so-called inverted perfect). Sperber’s main text reads a participle, supported by the Babylonian manuscript Eb22, but has no suffix. The participle tends to support the aspect of repetitive action.18 The suffix has been restored – object suffixes to the participle are attested, but not common – in S702 and S12 in the shortened form 8F:5 and in I702 in the long form 48F:5.19 However, two Yemenite manuscripts (Y714, Y733) have the pa el perfect without 17 Josh 7:21; 24:8; Judg 6:25; 11:31; 1 Sam 18:25; 2 Sam 3:35; 6:23; 1 Kgs 10:22; Isa 27:6; Jer 6:6; 8:4; 22:14(1st); 22:14(2nd); 32:11.34; 37:19; 45:1; 51:59; Ezek 1:13; 9:8; 16:29; 17:7.14; 18:20; 22:13; 23:19. 46; 30:18 Mss; 36:5; 43:26; 46:6.21 Hos 10:11; Joel 2:22; 4:7; Mic 5:1; Nah 2:12; 3:8; Hab 3:19; Zeph 3:11. 18 See M. C. A. Korpel, J. C. De Moor and F. Sepmeijer, “Consistency with Regard to Tenses: Targum and Peshitta in Two Samples from Deutero-Isaiah,” in Actes du Cinquieme Colloque International Bible et Informatique: Traduction et transmission, Aix-en-Provence, 1 – 4 September 1997 (TLQ 65; Paris: Honore Champion, 1998), 195 – 220; S. Bombeck, Das althebräische Verbalsystem aus aramäischer Sicht: masoretischer Text, Targume und Peschitta (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23:591; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1997). 19 The sigla for Mss of TgJon follows the proposal developed by the Targum Institute in Kampen, The Netherlands, which is under consideration for universal adoption by the IOTS (International Organization for Targum Studies).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

182

Willem F. Smelik

a suffix F:5.20 The interpreter, trying to emulate the iterative aspect of the past tense imperfect, chooses a participle but does not reflect the suffixed personal pronoun, because in Aramaic object suffixes are rarely attached to participles.21 This grammatical sensitivity explains its rare omission in a translation that otherwise tends to represent every lexeme in its source text. It is also quite obvious why western witnesses add the suffix, as they found it in their Hebrew source text, and in the late medieval period a proper sense of grammatical correctness may be assumed to have disappeared. But the Yemenite variant reading in this scenario must be a correction of tense without restoring the suffix. It hardly reflects the eastern ketiv, because it does not represent the waw either. It therefore would seem to reflect a purely grammatical change without any influence from the Masoretic tradition. Variants of spelling are to be disregarded because they may have been changed at any point during the course of textual transmission. In Jer 29:22, the name Ahab is spelled defectively as 5;4?9, the only occurrence out of 93 times the name appears in MT. The eastern qere reverts the spelling to its normal plene self, and TgJon complies. Spelling, however, was not yet governed by a national institution that voted over the preferred or prescribed modes of spelling, issuing guidelines and normative lists and creating more problems than hitherto existed. In any case, almost all of Sperber’s witnesses support the defective spelling for TgJon in this instance only : 5;4?9 (Y714, Y733, S702, S12, I705, R10, R11). The plene spelling may have been reintroduced at any one point partly because it so neatly differentiates between the name, Ahab, and the noun ‘father’s brother.’ Differences of gender between ketiv and qere, wherever the gender of a Hebrew noun may have been ambiguous over the centuries, cannot be cited either.22 Problematic, too, are instances with and without the definite article in Hebrew. This problem lies at the heart of the controversy about the dialect of Onqelos and Jonathan. If these targumim reflect, to some extent, the correct use of the determined state and absolute state of nouns, they have to be dated to the second century CE. As things are, both targumim sometimes seem to adhere to the old rules, and sometimes throw any discrimination between these forms out of the window.23 One category of ketiv-qere readings concerns a variation between singular ˘

˘

20 That the pa el is no error follows from both the pa el perfect in 36:24 in these witnesses, where the others have the pe al perfect, and the perfect of =BL9 in 36:23, continuing the tense of the variant under consideration. 21 G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch (repr. Darmstadt, 1960), 380. 22 This, in fact, applies to Ezek 14:17. 23 E.g. in Ezek 18:2, we find: EQ: A=D58 / EK: A=D5 / WK: A=D58 / TgJon: 4=D59. For the grammar, see Dalman, Grammatik, 188; R. J. Kuty, “Determination in Targum Jonathan to Samuel,” Aramaic Studies 3 (2005), 187 – 201. ˘

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

183

Targum & Masorah

and plural verbs, including Jer 48:41 discussed above. These differences should be disregarded in the quest for TgJon’s provenance or development. Another example occurs in Jer 51:29: MT 8BM@ @55 IL4 N4 A9M@ 898= N95M;B @55 @F 8BK =? TgJon 97J@ @557 4FL4 N= 849M@ =9=7 4N5M;B @55 @F 4BK =L4 EQ: 9BK / EK: 8BK / WK: 8BK / TgJon: 4B)K).

Komlosh does not cite this instance. An example of a further type of unreliable evidence is found in Amos 9:7: MT TgJon EQ: N=5 / EK: =D5 / WK: =D5 / TgJon: =D5.

@4LM= =D5 =@ AN4 A==M? =D5? 49@8 @4LM= =D5 =B7K C=5=M; C9N4 C=B=;L C=D5? 4@8

Hebrew N=5 equivalent to TgJon’s 4L5, or vice versa, Hebrew C5 represented by TgJon 4N=5 occurs throughout TgJon, and cannot be taken as evidence for any agreement with Masoretic traditions. I am inclined to consider the presence or absence of the copulative 9 in the same way.24

3.2.

TgJon = eastern qere = western ketiv

If TgJon originated in the East, or its compliance with the MT has been carefully coordinated, its disagreement with the eastern ketiv is relevant. Take, for example, Josh 8:12: MT L=F@ A=B =F8 C=59 @4 N=5 C=5 5L4 AN94 AM=9 TgJon 4NLK@ 5LFB =F C=59 @4 N=5 C=5 4DB? C98N= =9M9 EQ: @4 N=5 / EK: C94 N=5 / WK: @4 N=5 / TgJon: @4 N=5.

Of course, we cannot infer anything from this category unless we have established that TgJon should comply with the eastern text, beit qere or ketiv. It should also be noted, as Gordis points out, that Origen writes Bethaun sub asterisk.25 This means that what is now known as the eastern ketiv was known to him in third century Palestine. In a number of cases where variant readings contradict the evidence of the majority of witnesses, we seem to encounter a phenomenon that is peculiar for the Jewish Aramaic Bible translations: a correction of the target text after its parallel transmitted source text. At first, our evidence for Isa 38:14 would seem to be ambiguous: 24 See Joel 1:12: EQ: @? / EK: @?9 / WK: @? / TgJon: @?. Also note that S12 and S702 read @?9 here. 25 Gordis, The Biblical Text, 205, n. 786.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

184

Willem F. Smelik

MT 8D9=? 8684 GJHJ4 C? L96F E9E? TgJon 8D9=? N=B=8D9 N=H=JD C=? G=JDB9 7=;47 4HF? EQ: E9E? / EK: E=E? / WK: E9E? / TgJon: 4=E9E?.

The eastern ketiv has the E=E ‘common swift’ (Apus apus),26 while its qere substitutes the more common reading E9E ‘horse.’ Since the latter meaning makes no sense in its context, we either have a homonym sus denoting a bird – because p of the verb GHJ ‘chirp’ and the parallels L96F ‘crane’ and 8D9= ‘dove’ – or a scribal error for E=E ‘common swift.’ In Jer 8:7, the ketiv has E9E but the qere (western and eastern) reads E=E. TgJon generally supports the eastern qere (= western ketiv) with 4=E9E? (I705 reads the Hebraism E9E), but the Yemenite witness Y714 has 4HF? ‘as a bird.’ The latter reading may seem to support the eastern ketiv, but is peculiarly generic as a translation. Indeed, in TgJon Jer 8:7 the E=E is equivalent to 4=?L9? ‘goose,’ or perhaps ‘crane,’ as in Pes .27 Given the unified nature of the Targum to the Latter Prophets, with frequent examples of associative and complementary translations between the individual books, the specific translation 4=?L9? would have been expected in Isaiah, too. In combination with the rather too generic translation of this Yemenite witness, it seems likely that a later tradent, whose exemplar had E=E in the Hebrew, realised that Aramaic 4=E9E did not cut it, although he did not have the learning to specify the bird in question. This example, then, confirms the observation that scribes continued to gauge the Aramaic translation after their Hebrew exemplar. Whether that exemplar was the written or oral text is impossible to say. Since the original reading is that of the majority here, which agrees with both the eastern qere and the western ketiv, the evidence is inconclusive for the question of TgJon’s provenance.

3.3.

TgJon = eastern ketiv = western ketiv

If TgJon agrees with both the eastern and western ketiv (over against the eastern qere) that is significant, since TgJon tends to follow the qere in general, hence exceptions are marked. It should be restated, however, that TgJon’s testimony should be qualified in terms of language difference and translational strategies. An example can be found in Josh 8:13:

26 HALAT 3:710. 27 Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian, 566; see J. P. Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 211. Pes has the very same equivalents as TgJon does see TgJon: 4N=D9DE9 4=?L9?9 4D=DHM9. at this point:

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Targum & Masorah

185

MT

4988 8@=@5 FM98= ý@=9 L=F@ A=B 95KF N49 L=F@ C9HJB LM4 8D;B8 @? N4 AF8 9B=M=9 KBF8 ý9N5 TgJon 4=@=@5 FM98= @:49 4NLK@ 5LFB 8=DB? N=9 4NLK@ 4D9HJB7 4N=LMB @? N= 4BF 94=9M9 4LM=B 965 4988 EQ: =F@ / EK: L=F@ / WK: L=F@ / TgJon: 4NLK@.

TgJon clearly agrees with the eastern and western ketiv over against the eastern qere, but there are complicating factors. According to BHS, some manuscripts in fact have the qere in their main text. To complicate matters further, the qere of =F for L=F is standard for the first occurrence of L=F in Josh 8:16 (but not the second), which raises the question of whether that reading has been transferred to the first occurrence in this verse, especially since the second once more has been left untouched.28 However, chances are that the qere does not apply to 8:13 but to 8:12, as Max L. Margolis argues. In 8:12, cited above, the Yemenite tradition indeed has 4NLK@ – with the important exception of Y711, Sperber’s base text, which has =F@ –, but most western witnesses of TgJon read =F@ (so S702, I705, R10, S12 and S734) with the exception of A720 which agrees with the Yemenite text. It goes too far in my view to cite this instance as certain evidence for TgJon following the western text, as Gordis does. What is interesting about this testimony is that local texts apparently were adapted after their local exemplar – whether or not the eastern or western reading is more original, this conclusion applies. Problematic in terms of contents is the instance of Mic 6:5: MT L9F5 C5 AF@5 9N4 8DF 8B9 549B ý@B K@5 IF= 8B 4D L?: =BF TgJon L9F5 L5 AF@5 8=N= 5=N4 4B9 549B7 4?@B K@5 ý@B 4B CF? L?7=4 =BF EQ: =B / EK: 8B / WK: 8B / TgJon: 4B.

At this point, TgJon would appear to support the western text which agrees with the eastern one. The problem is that in its immediate co-text, the western reading is more self-evident than the eastern qere, hence TgJon’s agreement may not be due to either exemplar or reading tradition, but rather to contextual exegesis.

3.4.

TgJon = eastern ketiv ¼ 6 western ketiv

The second case Komlosh advanced as evidence for TgJon’s adherence to the eastern text –the fifth reading that is certain in the opinion of Gordis– is a case where the evidence is more complicated that either Gordis or Komlosh allow for. The reading is found in Jer 33:3:

28 M. L. Margolis, “Ai or the City,” JQR NS 7 (1917), 491 – 497.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

186

Willem F. Smelik

MT ANF7= 4@ N9LJ59 N9@76 ý@ 87=649 ýDF49 =@4 4LK TgJon C=DNF7= 4@7 CL=üD9 C5L5L ý@ =9;49 ýN9@J @=5K49 =B7K =@J EQ: N9LJ59 / EK: N9LJD9 / WK: N9LJ59 / TgJon: CL=üD9.

Although the difference between the ketiv and the qere can easily be explained as a scribal error due to graphical similarity,29 the agreement of any translation with one reading over against another is certainly significant here. Although arguably N*9LJ+5!l could denote something that is metaphorically ‘inaccessible,’30 such a meaning is far-fetched and would represent the only use of the lexeme in this way. On the other hand, TgJon indeed translates the Hebrew exactly as Jer 48:6 N9LJD9, which supports the hypothesis that TgJon reflects the oriental qere,31 all p p the more since LüD never reflects Hebrew LJ5. However, there are two qualifications. Some Hebrew manuscripts in fact support the qere-reading in their running text, and one western witness for TgJon (S702) reads C?=L?9 which supports N*9LJ+5!l.32 It seems likely, although it cannot be proven, that the exception to the rule, S702’s reading, is an adaptation to the reading found in the Hebrew source text, even though in this manuscript that source text is indicated only by one to four Hebrew lemmata before the translation of each verse. Such adaptations have been found to exist elsewhere.33 All in all I am inclined to accept the conclusions of Komlosh and Gordis, but not with the qualification of ‘certainly ;’ rather, we have to assume scribal assimilation to a (parallel transmitted) exemplar (see below). Another example cited by Gordis as certain evidence, is Jer 45:4: MT 4=8 IL48 @? N49 MND =D4 =NFüD LM4 N49 EL8 =D4 =N=D5 LM4 TgJon 4=8 =@=7 @4LM=7 4FL4 @? N=9 @=ü@ü4 4D4 N=B==K7 N=9 L6H4 4D4 =N=D57 48 EQ: 4=8 / EK: 4=8 =@ / WK: 4=8 / TgJon: 4=8 =@=7.34

Once more a reading distinct enough to count, although in this case many manuscripts support the reading 4=8 =@ which blurs the picture, since the Targum, which obviously agrees with the eastern qere, could have been based on a western exemplar with this reading. The question is, of course, how the minority reading in western manuscripts is to be explained. Such complicating Hebrew evidence requires an explanation. 29 See Tov, Textual Criticism, 243 – 245; this exchange is not listed among the most frequent ones. 30 So HALAT 1:141. 31 The same Hebrew-Aramaic equivalence occurs in TgJon Jer 26:3 and 27:3. 32 Eb22 supports the majority reading. See Ribera-Florit, Jerem†as, 208. 33 W. F. Smelik, “Orality, the Targums, and Manuscript Reproduction,” in A. den Hollander, U. Schmidt and W. F. Smelik (eds.), Paratext and Megatext in Jewish and Christian Traditions (JCP; Brill: Leiden, 2003), 79. 34 S706 reads 498 =@=7 but pointed as 4=8%.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Targum & Masorah

187

Sometimes, the adjustment may go two ways because it has been established for both the source and target text. In 2 Kgs 14:13 we find the following: MT 4B4 N94B F5L4 8DH8 LFM 7F A=LH4 LFM5 A@M9L= NB9;5 ILH=9 A@M9L= 35 945=9 TgJon C=B4 84B F5L4 4N=9: FLN 7F A=LH4 ü5=M FLNB A@M9L=7 4L9M5 üLH9 A@M9L=@ 4N49 EQ: LFM5 / EK: LFMB / WK: LFM5 / TgJon: FLNB.

Prepositions, of course, are notoriously difficult in many languages. It is perhaps not surprising to find that some Hebrew manuscripts read 8DH8 LFM 7F A=LH4 LFMB ‘from the Gate of Ephraim until the Corner Gate’ rather than 8DH8 LFM 7F A=LH4 LFM5 ‘in the Gate of Ephraim until the Corner Gate.’ Grammatically, the first reading is simpler, and it hardly comes as a surprise to find that most of our ancient translations support the easier reading en bloc.36 But just as the Hebrew texts vary, we find that there are some notable exceptions to the rule that TgJon supports the easier reading: Y716, R1 and R10 read FLN5. These witnesses are not normally closely associated with one another. Hence from a stemmatic perspective, it would seem unwise to count this example in for TgJon: the agreement, no doubt, is due to polygenesis. And the reason may be either grammatical improvement or alternative exemplar reading.

3.5.

TgJon = eastern qere ¼ 6 western ketiv

Among the few more straightforward examples ranks Ezek 5:11: MT @9B;4 4@ =D4 A69 =D=F E9;N 4@9 FL64 =D4 A69 TgJon A=;L4 4@ 4D4 G49 =LB=B E9;= 4@9 ý=FL7 G9KN G9üK4 4D4 G49 EQ: F764 / EK: FL64 / WK: FL64 / TgJon: G9üK4.

The difference between the ketiv and the qere is a highly frequent scribal error. p p TgJon’s translation favours the reading F76 ‘cut off,’37 as GüK represents this p root seven times in TgJon,38 and not once FL6, which is represented twice with p p ;@6 ‘shave’ and twice with FDB ‘withhold, prevent,’39 TgJon almost certainly reflects the eastern qere at this point, but it should be noted that the ketiv is problematic; any interpreter would have been faced with that circumstance. In

35 The qere for this verb is a singular : 45=9, with which TgJon agrees. 36 LXXL, Pes, Vulg, TgJon. For LXX, where all witnesses support ‘in’ apart from the ‘Lucianic’ group, see A. E. Brooke, N. McLean and H. J. Thackeray, I and II Kings (vol. 2, part. 2 of The Old Testament in Greek; London: Cambridge University Press, 1930), 346. 37 So Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, 4b: 335. 38 TgJon 1 Sam 2:31; Isa 10:33; 22:25; Jer 48:25; 50:23; Ezek 6:6; Amos 3:14. 39 TgJon Isa 15:2; Jer 26:2; 48:37; Ezek 16:27.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

188

Willem F. Smelik

fact, the translations adopted different solutions: LXX (!p¾sola¸) and Pes ( ), as indicated by BHS, may reflect @F64 instead of FL64.40 Gordis cites Ezek 22:4 as certain evidence: MT TgJon EQ: NF / EK: 7F / WK: 7F / TgJon: C7F.

ý=N9DM 7F 495N9 ý=B= =5=LKN9 ý=NM5 C7F 4üB9 ý=L5N A9= 5=LK9

The Hebrew reading in question is a crux, and TgJon may actually reflect another readingintheHebrewsourcetextfromwhichthetranslationwasmade(theeastern qere). However, LXX and Pes agree with TgJon (ja· Ecacer jaiq¹m 1t_m sou, ), which calls the notion of a Masoretic or oral traditionthat underlies TgJon into serious doubt. This translation may just as well reflect exegesis, which could have arised independently (polygenesis), or based on common traditions. It is not strong as evidence for TgJon’s relationship to the eastern qere. Far more problematic are cases where the prepositions @4 and @F interchange, which occurs five times, as in Ezek 13:2:41 MT TgJon EQ: @F / EK: @4 / WK: @4 / TgJon: @F.

A=45D8 @4LM= =4=5D @4 45D8 A74 C5 CüNMB7 @4LM=7 4LKM ==5D @F =5DN4 A74 L5

p The combination of 45D and @F occurs 21 times in MT;42 the combination with @4 only slightly less with 14 times.43 TgJon may support the qere here and in 13:17, but in 42:8 and Mal 3:22, where it also supports the eastern qere, that reading is identical with the western ketiv. The suggestion of the evidence is that such variation in prepositions may have been the result of scribal substitutions, which do not reflect on the readings in the exemplars. In other words, there is a strong possibility of polygenesis here, and the evidence cannot be admitted in connection with the provenance of TgJon.

p 40 Both versions render @F6 with these equivalents in Ezek 16:45 (not in Jer 14:19, but such consistency across books is not expected). 41 Ezek 13:2.17; 22:13 (here the eastern qere has @4); 42:8; Mal 3:22. 42 1 Kgs 22:8.18; Jer 25:13; 26:20; Ezek 4:7; 11:4; 13:17; 25:2; 28:21; 29:2; 34:2; 35:2; 36:6; 37:4; 38:2; 39:1; Amos 7:16; 1 Chr 25:2 – 3; 2 Chr 18:7.17. 43 Jer 25:30; 26:11 – 12; 28:8; Ezek 6:2; 13:2.16; 21:2.7; 34:2; 36:1; 37:9.12; Amos 7:15.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Targum & Masorah

189

Epilogue The foregoing analysis demonstrates how hazardous it is to claim that TgJon follows the eastern text, whether oral or written. The elimination of adduced evidence in earlier studies is a trend that receives confirmation in the detailed analysis of other instances. Only one instance (Ezek 5:11) of TgJon’s agreement with the eastern qere remains, and such a basis is far too slender to infer any conclusions. In studies of textual genealogy, a debate has raged over the balance between weighted quantitative and qualitative input. At one end of the spectrum, a Neo-Lachmannian approach favours a rigorous selection of variant readings, regardless of the small quantity of readings that survives the selection process. Others have argued for the bias such selection introduces into our evidence. With very little evidence to go on, some of which is conflicting at that, we must bear in mind the possible distorting influence of a handful of readings. On the other hand, the study yielded another far more positive and perhaps interesting result in the development of the text. Certain readings appeared to have been corrected after the Hebrew source text, and differences between ketivqere readings became apparent. Readings sometimes ‘travel’ up and down genealogical lines, regardless of geographic boundaries and families of manuscripts, which is one reason why no tree or stemma of textual witnesses can ever do justice to the vicissitudes and vagaries of texts in transmission. Readings are not just a function of their scribe’s exemplar, but the result of multiple factors. These factors include independent scribal slips or corrections; available alternatives, whether marginal, oral or in the form of multiple exemplars; and above all a source text looming large in the background (or foreground!) which calls for adaptation of the Targum. The nature of linguistic differences between the MT and TgJon and translational strategies all render the vast majority of instances without a voice in the debate about the provenance of TgJon. The remaining instances often reflect cases as easily, if not far more convincingly, explained as a result of polygenesis and extant exegetical traditions. TgJon, in this scenario, may have been aware of alternative readings which were not formally written or part of the ketiv-qere traditions. In fact, the results stand in such a stark contrast to received wisdom that previous claims of a general agreement between TgJon and the qere – or that between other versiones and the qere – should probably be reexamined, if the question is still worth pursuing. Does TgJon follow the eastern qere-ketiv readings? The evidence is not just far too flimsy to allow such a conclusion, but the question is probably ill-advised. What may be of interest is that the different ketiv-qere readings are sometimes effectuated and imposed on TgJon during the long process of textual transmission. It stands to reason that collation of further manuscripts will add to the

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

190

Willem F. Smelik

picture above that was based on the edition by Sperber, supplemented with the Spanish editions of the Babylonian fragments by Emiliano Mart†nez-Borobio and Josep Ribera-Florit.44 If anything, further examples of travelling variant readings are likely to be added to those above.

44 E. Mart†nez-Borobio, I – II Samuel (vol. 2 of Targum Jonat‚n de los Profetas Primeros en tradiciûn babilûnica; Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 38; Madrid: Instituto de Filolog†a del CSIC, 1987); id., Josu¦-Jueces (vol. 1 of Targum Jonat‚n de los Profetas Primeros en tradiciûn babilûnica; Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 46; Madrid: Instituto de Filolog†a del CSIC, 1989); id., I – II Reyes (vol. 3 of Targum Jonat‚n de los Profetas Primeros en tradiciûn babilûnica; Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 63; Madrid: Instituto de Filolog†a del CSIC, 1998); J. Ribera-Florit, Biblia Babilûnica: Profetas Posteriores (Targum) (Salamanca: Varona, 1977); id., Targum Jonat‚n de los Profetas Posteriores en tradiciûn babilûnica: Isa†as (Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 43; Madrid: Instituto de Filolog†a del CSIC, 1987); id., Jerem†as; id., Ezequiel.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Lea Himmelfarb Bar-Ilan University, Israel

Does the Tiberian Accentuation System Preserve the Babylonian Accentuation System?

1.

Introduction

To read the Holy Scriptures correctly, two matters must be carefully attended to. The first is the precise pronunciation of the biblical words themselves.1 The second is correct punctuation, that is to say, reading the text in accordance with the biblical accents.2 Although the correct punctuation of the biblical text poses a more serious problem for the reader than the pronunciation, only a few studies have been devoted to this question.3 This study does not attempt to examine the various ways in which the Scriptures were actually pronounced throughout history. Instead, it will address the written instructions conveyed by the accentuation system designed to provide the reader with clear guidelines on how the verses should be divided.4 1 For studies addressing proper pronunciation, see e. g. I. Eldar (Adler), The Hebrew Language Tradition in Medieval Ashkenaz (ca. 950 – 1350 C.E.) (Heb.; vols. 1 – 2; Jerusalem: Publications of the Hebrew University Language Traditions Project, 1978 – 1979); id., “The Art of Correct Reading of the Bible,” in A. Dotan (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies (Masoretic Studies 7; Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1992), 33 – 42; id., The Study of the Art of Correct Reading of the Bible as Reflected in the Medieval Treatise Hida¯yat al-Qa¯ri (= Guidance of the Reader) (Heb.; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1994). 2 On the principles of biblical accentuation, see W. Wickes, Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1881, 1887; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1970); M. Breuer, Biblical Accents in the Twenty-One [Prose] Books and in the Three [Poetical] Books (Heb.; Jerusalem: Mikhlala, 1982); I. Yeivin, The Biblical Masorah (Heb.; Studies in Language 3; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2003), 139 – 181. 3 For a closely related study, see A. Dotan, “About Pronunciation in Prayer and Tora Reading,” in I. Gluska and T. Kessar (eds.), Shivtiel Book: Studies in the Hebrew Language and in the Linguistic Traditions of the Jewish Communities (Heb.; Ramat Gan: Ha-aguda le-Tipuach Chevra ve-Tarbut, 1992), 68 – 76, esp. 71 – 72. 4 As is widely known, the pauses, or to be more specific, the relative strength of the biblical accents usually sheds light on the text’s meaning and intent. On the correlation between biblical accentuation and exegesis, see e. g. M. B. Cohen, “Masoretic Accents as a Biblical Commentary,” JANES 4:1 (1972), 2 – 11; M. Perlman, Hug Le-Taʿamei Ha-Miqra (Tel Aviv,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

192

Lea Himmelfarb

The study deals with one aspect of preserving the reading of the biblical text, asking whether the Tiberian accentuation system follows the early system of writing the accents, as reflected by the Babylonian manuscripts. Two issues will be addressed in answering this question: 1) the divisions of the verse and its units and the way in which they are accented according to the two accentuation systems; and 2) the paseq in the Tiberian system and the corresponding accent in the Babylonian one. That the Pentateuch was already read in the biblical period is abundantly clear.5 The question that needs to be asked is, how was the method of reading preserved over the centuries? It is assumed that the Written Torah was read with stresses and pauses related to the tune with which the Bible was supposed to be read.6 Therefore, a system dictating how the Written Torah should be read must have existed. This means that the books of the Bible were relayed with an accompanying oral system passed on by each generation.7 Aron Dotan asserted that, “the transmission of the Bible is as old as the Bible itself.”8 According to Lea Himmelfarb, the priests, right at the dawn of the history of the Hebrew Bible, were the first to engage – initially orally and later in writing – in the fastidious preservation of the biblical text and its precise language.9 It can

5 6 7

8

9

1973 – 1975); Breuer, Biblical Accents, 368 – 389; S. Kogut, Correlations between Biblical Accentuation and Traditional Jewish Exegesis: Linguistic and Contextual Studies (Heb.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1994); L. Himmelfarb, “The Commentary by Nechama Leibowitz on the Bible and Its Relation to Taʿamei Hamiqra,” in M. Arend, G. Cohen and R. Ben-Meir (eds.), Pirkei Nechama – Prof. Nechama Leibowitz Memorial Volume (Heb.; Jerusalem: Eliner Press, 2001), 53 – 69; id., “The Status of Biblical Accentuation in the Daʿat Mikra Commentary on the Torah” (Heb.), Beit Mikra 52:1 (2007), 103 – 116; S. Leonora, “Accentuation: A Tool for Interpreting the Text of the Hebrew Bible,” JBQ 33:3 (2005), 174 – 183. For biblical passages attesting to this, see Josh 8:34; 2 Kgs 23:2; Neh 8:2 – 3. See too m. Yoma 7:1. According to R. Johanan (b. Meg 32a): “He who reads (‫ )קורא‬without melody (‫ )נעימה‬and studies (‫ )שונה‬without a tune (‫ )זמרה‬is referred to by the verse ‘And wherefore I gave them statutes which were not good…’ (Ezek 20:25).” While the Karaites believe that the Torah was revealed at Sinai along with the vocalization and accentuation signs, the Rabbanite position is that no punctuation marks were transcribed. A survey on this issue can be found in E. Levita, Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita: Being An Exposition Of The Massoretic Notes On The Hebrew Bible, With an English Translation and Critical Notes by C. D. Ginsburg (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1968), 121 ff. A. Dotan, “Masorah,” EncJud (2d ed.; 2007), 13:603 – 656, esp. 606 ff. The Karaite grammarian Abu al-Faraj Harun (eleventh century) also assumes that the traditional method of reading the Torah in the Land of Israel was preserved and transmitted unfailingly from generation to generation; see I. Eldar, “The Antiquity of the Accentuation Signs According to the Karaite Abu-I-Faraj,” in M. Bar-Asher (ed.), Rabbi Mordechai Breuer Festschrift: Collected Papers in Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: Academon Press, 1992), 147 – 156, esp. 151. L. Himmelfarb, “The Identity of the First Masoretes,” Sefarad 67 (2007), 37 – 50.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Tiberian Accentuation System

193

be assumed that the priests orally transmitted how the Written Torah should be read to the next generation. Indeed, even the Oral Torah was transmitted from generation to generation, but it was not written down because “the words transmitted orally thou art not at liberty to recite from writing” (b. Git 60b). Those responsible for its preservation began to include written signs or notations, which eased the preservation of the text’s written and read versions. The instructions detailing how the Bible should be written – which were originally oral in nature – are now known to be the work of the Masters of the Masorah. The oral instructions that addressed how the Bible should be read are mainly familiar today from the graphical representations of the biblical accents.10 The ancient Babylonian system was the first to document in written form ‘the way in which the Bible should be read,’11 which is presumed to have occurred in the sixth century. Until the tenth century, the Babylonian system was the most popular and widespread throughout the Jewish world, but after that point, the Tiberian system was privileged over both the Babylonian and Palestinian ones.12 Did the transition from one accentuation system to another change the reading?

2.

Division and Accentuation According to the Babylonian and Tiberian Accentuation Systems

Commenting on the relationship between the two accentuation systems, Israel Yeivin wrote that the original Babylonian method (= the early one) “usually does not correspond” to the Tiberian method in every single aspect. However, Dotan noted that the division of the verses according to the Babylonian Masorah “sometimes differs,” especially in ancient manuscripts, from the Tiberian division.13 10 S. D. Luzzatto wrote in the introduction to his commentary on Isaiah: “The accents are the accepted reading, transmitted orally until the time of the Sages in the Second Temple period” (Perushe Shedal al Sefer Yesha‘yah [Heb.; Edited by P. Shlesinger and M. Hobab; Padua 1845 – 1897; repr. Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1990], 10). 11 Some scholars do believe that the Palestinian system predated the Babylonian one (see Dotan, “Masorah,” 627); however this does not impinge on our claim because as far as the accents are concerned, there are no major differences between Palestinian manuscripts and the Tiberian text. 12 On the accentuation systems’ chronology, see A. Dotan, “The Relative Chronology of Hebrew Vocalization and Accentuation,” PAAJR 48 (1981), 87 – 99; id., “The Relative Chronology of the Accentuation System,” in M. Bar-Asher (ed.), Language Studies 2 – 3 (Heb.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1987), 355 – 365; id., “From the Masorah to Grammar: the First Blossoms of Hebrew Grammatical Thought” (Heb.), Leshonenu 54 (1990), 155 – 168. 13 Dotan, “Masorah,” 632; Yeivin, The Biblical Masorah, 229.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

194

Lea Himmelfarb

In her doctoral dissertation, Ronit Shoshany conducted a thorough investigation of the Babylonian accent system.14 She arrived at her findings based on a sample cohort containing approximately 800 verses from the early and late Babylonian strata that she compared with verses accentuated according to the Tiberian system. Shoshany stressed the “differences” between both the rules of accentuation and division in the two systems.15 Her statistical conclusions had the following ramifications on our research: a) Shoshany found that in early Babylonian manuscripts most of the units (1,665 out of 1,948 or 85.5 %) were divided the same way by both systems and only 283 units (14.5 %) were divided differently.16 In the late Babylonian stratum, 1,753 units out of 1,728 were divided the same way, i. e., 98.6 % of the total compared were identical, while only 25 cases (or 1.4 %) differed.17 These findings show that 85 % of the time the biblical reading system based on the hierarchy of accent division found in the Tiberian system reflects the reading system attested to by the early Babylonian accentuation system. Furthermore, the correspondence between the Tiberian system and the later Babylonian system is almost complete (nearly 99 %). b) Shoshany mentions that the category with cases where particles were involved exhibits the lowest level of correspondence between the two systems, only 64.3 %.18 If this category is excluded, however, the level of correspondence between the two systems rises from 85 to 89 %. c) Another significant comparison shows that the two systems are identical 97 % of the time with regard to the main division of the entire verse.19 That is to say, the main divisions of the verses must have been known from time immemorial, and they did not change, even though in most cases they were not written down in the Babylonian system.20 14 R. Shoshany, Babylonian Accentuation, Stages of Development, and Relationship to the Tiberian System (Ph. D. diss.; Tel-Aviv, 2003). 15 See R. Shoshany, “The Original Purpose of Biblical Accentuation,” in M. Bar-Asher and C. E. Cohen (eds.), Mas’at Aharon: Linguistic Studies Presented to Aron Dotan (Heb.; Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 2009), 469 – 486, esp. 476 – 481. 16 Shoshany, Babylonian Accentuation, 268. 17 Shoshany, Babylonian Accentuation, 368. 18 Shoshany, Babylonian Accentuation, 268, table 1. 19 Shoshany, Babylonian Accentuation, 277, table 7. 20 It is natural to assume that the first signs written down in the Babylonian system were the two main accents: the silluq and the ’atnah. But findings show that the silluq was not annotated in the Babylonian accentuation system,˙in all probability they did not feel it necessary to mark the last word in the verse because the division into verses was shrouded in the mists of time and, hence, familiar to all. The need to place the silluq on the last word of the verse in order to signify how it should stressed was also irrelevant to the Babylonian accentuators because the accent signs were in any event not placed on the stressed syllable in the Babylonian system. The ’atnah – the verse’s main pause – also usually went unmarked in the early Babylonian ˙

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Tiberian Accentuation System

195

d) It is surprising to see from the comparison that there is no significant difference between the divisions made – in so far as the various sections of the Hebrew Bible are concerned21 – between the two accent systems, which range from 83 % similarity in the Pentateuch to 87 % in the Hagiographa, with 86 % in the Prophets. The level of correspondence in the Pentateuch was expected to be intrinsically high and significantly greater than that of the Prophets and Hagiographa since the liturgical reading of the Torah demands greater precision both in the act of reading and in the preservation of the text itself. This would have meant that especially great care had been taken in the transition from the Babylonian to the Tiberian system.22 On the other hand, perhaps the lower level of correspondence stems from the fact that reading aloud can lead to certain changes that are often incorporated into the written text, like the natural tendency to join a tiny word to the one following it in the course of reading (in the Tiberian system) and not to separate it (in the Babylonian system). In summary, over 85 % of the time (as testified by the cohort), the biblical reading system based on the hierarchy of accent division found in the Tiberian system reflects the earlier reading system attested to by the Babylonian accentuation system. In order to demonstrate the similarity and differences between how the Tiberian and Babylonian systems parse the verse into units and accentuate it, twelve examples taken from various manuscripts and various books of the Bible that have not yet been published in a scholarly forum are presented here.23 In the first line of every example the unit is accented in the Tiberian manner.24 In the

21 22

23 24

accentuation system, probably because the readers were, for the most part, familiar with it, so they did not require a written notation. Sometimes it is marked by ‫ ;סיחפא‬a notation that corresponds to the sign of the Tiberian ’atnah, but appears above the line. See Shoshany, ˙ Babylonian Accentuation, 383. Shoshany, Babylonian Accentuation, 276, table 5. On the influence of the particular section of the Hebrew Bible in the preservation of the original accentuation, see a statistical analysis of all the verses in the Hebrew Bible by L. Himmelfarb, “Structural Characteristics of Verses without Etnach in the 21 Prose Books of the Bible,” in R. Kasher and M. Zipor (eds.), Studies in Bible and Exegesis VI, Y.O. Komlosh – in Memoriam (Heb.; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 47 – 69, esp. 62 – 63. Himmelfarb discovered that in brief verses the Tiberian system preferred to employ the ’atnah in ˙ the Pentateuch and the Prophets, and the zaqef or tifha’ in the Hagiographa. She concluded from this that brief verses, found in the Torah and the˙ Prophets –books with a higher level of sanctity, that were more frequently read in public than those comprising the Hagiographa– preserved the original ʾatnah accentuation. ˙ See e. g. A. Spanier, Die massoretischen Akzente: eine Darlegung ihres Systems nebst Beiträgen zum Verständnis ihrer Entwicklung (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1927), 88 – 96; R. Shoshany, Babylonian Accentuation, 64 – 377. The Tiberian version is quoted from the Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘Haketer:’ A Revised and Augmented Scientific Edition of “Mikra’ot Gedolot” Based on the Aleppo Codex and Early Medieval MSS on CD-Rom. Edited by M. Cohen. Bar-Ilan University Press.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

196

Lea Himmelfarb

second line, the parallel unit is accented in the early Babylonian fashion, and the appellation of the manuscript containing this accentuation is given in parentheses.25

2.1.

Both systems have the same exact division and accentuation Ezek 3:2 (1 ‫וֶָאְפ ַ֖תּח ֶאת־ ִ֑פּי וַ ַ֣יּ ֲאִכיֵ֔לנִי ֵ֖את ַה ְמִּג ָ ֥לּה ַהזּֽ ֹאת‬ ‫ז‬ ∨ (Ms Eb 10)26 º ‫ואפתח את פי ויאכילני את המגלה הזאת‬

The main division found in the Tiberian system, where an ’atnah separates the ˙ two subjects, is exactly the same as that found in the Babylonian system. Though the ’atnah does not actually appear in the Babylonian manuscript, its positioning ˙ above ‫ פי‬may be inferred from the letter rimiya occurring above ‫ואפתח‬. Qoh 1:4 (2 ‫֤דּוֹר ה ֵֹלְ֙ך ְו֣דוֹר ֔ ָבּא ְוָהָ֖אֶרץ ְלעוֹ ָ ֥לם ע ָֹֽמֶדת‬ ‫ז‬ ‫ת‬ (Ms Ec 1)27 ‫דור הלך ודור בא והארץ לעולם עמדת‬

The zaqef above ‫ בא‬in the Tiberian system follows the letter ‫ ז‬in the Babylonian system and also divides the verse into two subjects. 1 Chr 14:10 (3 ָ‫… וַ ֨יּ ֹאֶמר ֤לוֹ ֙ה׳ ֲעֵ֔לה וּנְַת ֖ ִתּים ְבּיֶָֽד ך‬ ‫ת ז‬ (Ms Ec 1)28 ‫… ויאמר לו ה׳ עלה ונתתים בידך‬

The silluq’s domain is divided in both systems by a zaqef situated on the word ‫עלה‬, at the end of God’s first utterance.29 25 The method Yeivin employed in naming the collection of Genizah fragments he edited (I. Yeivin [ed.], Geniza Bible Fragments with Babylonian Massorah and Vocalization [6 vols; Jerusalem: Makor, 1973]) was used to list the Babylonian manuscripts. 26 Yeivin, Geniza, 3:121. Compared with A. Alba-Cecilia, Biblia babilónica: Ezequiel. Edición crítica según manuscritos hebreos de puntuación babilónica (Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 27; Madrid: CSIC, 1980), 12. 27 Bible-Hagiographa Codex Berlin, Or. Qu. 680. With an Introduction by I. Yeivin (Jerusalem: Makor, 1972), 115. On verses lacking an ʾatnah in the Tiberian system, see L. Himmelfarb, ˙ “Structural Characteristics,” 47 – 69. 28 Bible-Hagiographa Codex Berlin, 170. 29 On the syntactic division of speech units in the Bible, see Igrot Shadal (ed. S. A. Graber; Krakow, 1893), 8:1208, 1222; Spanier, Die massoretischen Akzente, 57 – 58; Wickes, Two Treatises on the Accentuation, 35 – 36; M. Perlman, The Introduction to the Book of Joshua according to the Biblical Accentuation (Heb.; Tel Aviv: Zimrat, 1984), 48 – 55; Breuer, Biblical

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

197

The Tiberian Accentuation System

2.2.

Both systems have the same divisions but different accents Ezek 33:1 (4 ‫וַי ְִ֥הי ְדַבר־֖ה׳ ֵא ַ ֥לי ֵלא ֽמ ֹר‬ ∨ ‫ז‬ (Ms Eb 10)30 º ‫ויהי דבר ה׳ אלי לאמר‬

The verse’s main division is exactly the same in both systems – at God’s name.31 However, while the Tiberian system employed a tifha’ as the verse’s main dis˙ junctive, the Babylonian system employs a zaqef. Ps 101:7 (5 ֽ‫ֽל ֹא־י ֵ ֨ ֵשׁב׀ ְבּ ֶ ֥קֶרב ֵבּיִת֮י ע ֹ ֵ ֪שׂה ְרִ֫מ ָיּ֥ה דּ ֹ ֵ ֥בר ְשָׁק ִ֑רים ל ֹא־ ֝י ִ ֗כּוֹן ְל ֶ ֣נֶגד ֵעיָני‬ ‫ז‬ ∨ ‫ת‬ (Ms Ec 1)32 ‫לא ישב בקרב ביתי עשה רמיה דבר שקרים לא יכון לנגד עיני‬

In both systems, the verse is divided to reflect its chiastic parallel structure. The entire verse from Psalms is divided according to the Tiberian system by an ‘oleh we-yored placed on the word ‫רמיה‬. The Babylonian accentuation system, however, places an ʾatnah to indicate the main division since it accents the main ˙ divider in the three poetical books (Job, Proverbs and Psalms) the same way as the twenty-one prose books. Although the ʾatnah is not marked on the word ‫רמיה‬, ˙ it may be inferred from the disjunctive rimiya preceding it, above the word ‫ביתי‬. An additional difference in accentuation also arises in the silluq’s domain: in the Babylonian system the main disjunctive is the zaqef – positioned above the word ‫שקרים‬, and in the Tiberian, an ’atnah. ˙ In both this example and the previous one, although the two systems use different accents to indicate the main division, this clearly does not impact upon the force of the punctuation used in the verses.33

30 31 32 33

Accents, 355, 360; S. Avinon, “Syntactic, Logical, and Semantic Aspects of Masoretic Accentuation Signs” (Heb.), Leshonenu 53 (1989), 157 – 192, esp. 172 – 173. Alba-Cecilia, Biblia babilónica: Ezequiel, 62. On the repositioning of the main disjunctive in verses that end with the word ‫לאמר‬, see Perlman, The Introduction to the Book of Joshua, 16 – 29. Bible-Hagiographa Codex Berlin, 30. Compared with P. Kahle, Der masoretische Text des Alten Testaments, nach der Überlieferung der babylonischen Juden (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs 1902; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966), 97. There are additional differences between the two systems that also fail to influence the reading. Firstly, the Babylonian tradition is an early accentuation system that lacks conjunctive accents. Secondly, in the Babylonian system, the disjunctives are not placed on the stressed syllable, perhaps because the “masters of the Babylonian accents” were not afraid of this leading to a reading error. In contrast, the Tiberian system has been perfected to include a large number of different conjunctive accents, most of which, just like the disjunctive signs, are placed on the stressed syllable.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

198

Lea Himmelfarb

Ps 92:3 (6 ‫ְלַה ִ ֣גּיד ַבּ ֣בּ ֶֹקר ַחְס ֶ ֑דּךָ ֝וֱֶא֥מוּנְָת ֗ךָ ַבּ ֵלּיֽלוֹת‬ ‫ז‬ ‫ת‬ (Ms Ec 1)34 ‫להגיד בבקר חסדך ואמונתך בלילות‬

The first part of the verse is accented with an ’atnah in the Tiberian system, which ˙ corresponds to the zaqef in the Babylonian system. It would be appropriate to divide this domain before the final object; indeed, the Babylonian system places a taw above the word ‫בבקר‬. The disjunctive dehi cannot be used by the Tiberian ˙ system because of the accentuation rules, so it is replaced by a conjunctive accent – the munah.35 ˙ 2.3.

Different divisions Lev 21:23 (7 ‫ַ ֣אְך ֶאל־ַה ָפּ ֝ר ֶֹכת‬ (Ms Ee 5)36 ‫אך אל הפרכת‬

In the Tiberian system a conjunctive munah is placed under ‫אך‬, while in the ˙ Babylonian system the particle ‫ אך‬is accentuated with a disjunctive, the slanted letter nun (nun netuyah) above it. Deut 28:39 (8 ‫ְוַ֤יי ִן ֽל ֹא־ִת ְשׁ ֶתּ֙ה ְו ֣ל ֹא ֶתֱא ֔ג ֹר‬ ‫ז‬ ‫ת‬ (Ms Ee 12)37 ‫ויין לא תשתה ולא תאגר‬

The Tiberian system divides the zaqef ’s domain by placing a pashta’ above the words ‫ לא־תשתה‬and separates the instructions. The Babylonian system divides the zaqef ’s domain by placing a taw above the word ‫ ויין‬and separating between the object and the two instructions.

(Ms Eb 10)38

Ezek 34:30 (9 ‫ְוי ְָד֗עוּ ִ֣כּי ֲאִ֧ני ֛ה׳ ֱאל ֵֹהי ֶ ֖הם ִא ָ ֑תּם‬ ∨ ‫ח‬ ‫ז‬ ‫וידעו כי אני ה׳ אלהיהם אתם‬

34 Bible-Hagiographa Codex Berlin, 25. Compared with Kahle, Der masoretische Text, 91. 35 When the word accentuated with an ’atnah is not long and the division occurs on the word ˙ next to the ’atnah the dehi is replaced by a conjunctive – the munah. See, for instance, Breuer, ˙ Biblical Accents,˙249. ˙ 36 Yeivin, Geniza, 1:14. 37 Yeivin, Geniza, 1:124. 38 Yeivin, Geniza, 3:128. Compared with Alba-Cecilia, Biblia babilónica: Ezequiel, 71.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Tiberian Accentuation System

199

In the Tiberian division, the tifha’ divides the ’atnah’s domain within the phrase ˙ ˙ recounting what the people will know. In the Babylonian system, the ’atnah’s ˙ domain, which is unmarked, is divided by a zayin, situated above the introductory word ‫וידעו‬. Hos 2:16 (10 ‫ָלֵ֗כן ִה ֵ֤נּ ה ָאנ ִֹכ ֙י ְמַפ ֔ ֶתּיָה ְוה ַֹלְכ ֖ ִתּיָה ַה ִמְּד ָ ֑בּר ְוִד ַבְּר ֖ ִתּי ַעל־ִל ָֽבּהּ‬ ∨ ‫ת‬ (Ms Eb 54)39 ‫לכן הנה אנכי מפתיה והלכתיה המדבר ודברתי על לבה‬

There are three components in this verse. In the Tiberian system the ’atnah on ˙ ‫ המדבר‬divides the verse so that two predicates appear in the first part and one predicate appears in the second part, the silluq’s domain. However, in the early Babylonian system, the remiya on the word ‫ אנכי‬indicates that the (unmarked) ’atnah should appear on the word ‫מפתיה‬, at the end of the first predicate, so that in ˙ the second part there are two predicates. Mic 4:11(11 ‫ְוַע ָ ֛תּה נֶֶאְס֥פוּ ָעַ֖לי ְִך גּוִֹ֣ים ַר ִ֑בּים ָהא ְֹמִ֣רים ֶתֱּח ֔נָף ְו ַ ֥תַחז ְבִּצ ֖יּוֹן ֵעיֵניֽ נוּ‬ ∨ ‫ז‬ ∨ ‫ז‬ (Ms Eb 10)40 º ‫ועתה נאספו עליך גוים רבים האמרים תחנף ותחז בציון עינינו‬

The two systems reflect two ways of dividing these ‘speech units.’ The Tiberian system divides the silluq’s domain with a zaqef above ‫ תחנף‬within the direct speech, whereas the Babylonian divides the silluq’s domain with the letter zayin at the end of the introduction ‫האמרים‬, before the direct speech begins.41 The ’atnah’s domain (as may be inferred from the remiya on ‫ עליך‬in the ˙ Babylonian system) is also divided by the two systems in two different ways: the introductory word ‫ ועתה‬is accentuated with a tebir by the Tiberian system and with a zaqef by the Babylonian system. Zech 1:13 (12 ‫וַ ַ֣יּ ַען ֗ה׳ ֶאת־ַה ַמְּל ָ ֛אְך ַהדּ ֹ ֵ ֥בר ִ֖בּי ְדָּבִ֣רים טוִֹ֑בים ְדָּבִ֖רים נִֻחִֽמים‬ ‫ת ז‬ ∨ ‫ת‬ (Ms Eb 80)42 ‫ויען ה׳ את המלאך הדבר בי דברים טובים דברים נחומים‬

In the Tiberian system the ’atnah divides within the objects, while in the Bab˙ ylonian system the verse is divided by an unmarked ’atnah (that should be placed ˙ on ‫בי‬, as indicated by the remiya on ‫ )המלאך‬which precedes the objects. 39 Yeivin, Geniza, 4:342; And I compared this with A. Navarro-Peiro and F. Pérez-Castro, Biblia babilónica: Profetas Menores. Edición crítica según manuscritos hebreos de puntuación babilónica (Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 16; Madrid: CSIC, 1977), 9. 40 Navarro-Peiro and Pérez-Castro, Biblia babilónica: Profetas Menores, 47. 41 See above n. 29. 42 Navarro-Peiro and Pérez-Castro, Biblia babilónica: Profetas Menores, 85.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

200

3.

Lea Himmelfarb

The Tiberian paseq and its corresponding accentuation in the Babylonian system

The paseq, a vertical line occurring between two words, indicates a pause in the reading in the Tiberian system, even though it occurs after a word with a conjunctive accent.43 Is the paseq’s instruction to the reader to pause – which appears 587 times in the twenty-one prose and three poetical books, and which countermands the instruction of the conjunctive accent preceding it – a wholly Tiberian innovation or does it have earlier roots in the Babylonian system?44 Finding a paseq in the Babylonian system is not expected, since in the Babylonian manuscripts there are no conjunctives and thus, by definition, there would be no paseqs to follow them.And indeed the sign of the paseq is nowhere to be found in the Babylonian system. What, then, do the Babylonian manuscripts contain at the location where the paseq appears in the Tiberian system?

3.1.

Units with a paseq in the Tiberian system and their parallels in the early Babylonian system

In the Tiberian Masorah, in the Hagiographa, there are 196 paseqs. In the early Babylonian manuscript, the Berlin Ms Or. Qu. 680, only fifty-three parallel units were found.45 Seventeen of these units have a common denominator. Ps 44:24 (1 ‫ָ֖ל ָמּה ִתי ַ ֥שׁן ׀ ֑ה׳‬ ‫ת ז‬ 46 ‫למה תישן ֑ה׳‬

43 For a detailed study of the paseq, see L. Widawski’s (= Himmelfarb’s) Ph.D. diss., The Paseq in the Hebrew Bible: Occurrences in Medieval Manuscripts, Characteristics and Relation to the Accentuation System (Heb.; Bar Ilan University, 1990). 44 The fact that the paseq’s direction to pause between the two words overpowers the conjunctive accent’s instruction to join the two words can be inferred from the dagesh in one of the letters of ‫בגד כפ״ת‬, which occurs at the beginning of the word following the paseq, if the word before the paseq has an open syllable at the end. Thus, in the following cases: ‫ ָר ִ ֣איִתי ִביהוּ ָ֣דה ׀ דּ ְֹרִֽכים־ ִגּ ֣תּוֹת ׀‬,(Prov 7:3) ‫שׂה ֥ז ֹאת ֵא֪פוֹא ׀ ְבּ ֡נִי‬ ֵ ֨ ‫ ֲע‬,(Deut 9:21) ‫וֶָא ְשׂ ֣ר ֹף א ֹ֣תוֹ ׀ ָבֵּא ֒שׁ‬, (Gen 18:21) ‫ָע ֣שׂוּ ׀ ָכּ ָ֑לה‬ .(2 Chr 20:8) ‫ וַיּ ְִב֨נוּ ְל ֧ךָ ׀ ָ ֛בּהּ‬,(1 Chr 21:3) ‫יוֵֹס֩ף ֨ה' ַעל־ַע ֤מּוֹ ׀ ָכֵּה֙ם‬,(Neh 13:15) ‫ַבּ ַשּׁ ֡ ָבּת‬

45 The relatively low number of units in the Babylonian manuscript is either a consequence of partial documentation in the manuscripts or of effacement or erasure over time. 46 According to I. Yeivin (“Babylonian Manuscript of the Hagiographa. Introduction,” in BibleHagiographa Codex Berlin, Or. Qu. 680 [Heb.; Jerusalem: Makor, 1972], 15) the Tiberian ’atnah, which is annotated beneath the word [and likewise in the following examples] is not ˙ originary, but rather a later addition.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

‫‪201‬‬

‫‪The Tiberian Accentuation System‬‬

‫‪Ps 89:52 (2‬‬ ‫ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ֵחְר֖פוּ אוֹי ְ ֶ ֥ביךָ ׀ ֑ה׳‬ ‫ת ז‬ ‫אשר חרפו אויבך ֑ה׳‬ ‫‪Ps 94:4 (3‬‬ ‫ַעד־ָמַ֖תי ְר ָשׁ ִ֥עים ׀ ֑ה׳‬ ‫ת ז‬ ‫עד מתי רשעים ֑ה׳‬ ‫‪Ps 108:4 (4‬‬ ‫אוְֹד ֖ךָ ָבַע ִ ֥מּים ׀ ֲא־דָ֑ני‬ ‫ת ז‬ ‫אודך בעמים ֑ה׳‬ ‫‪Prov 1:22 (5‬‬ ‫ַעד־ָמ ַ ֣תי ׀ ְפָּתי ִ֮ם‬ ‫ח‬ ‫]ע[ד מתיד פתים‬ ‫‪Prov 6:9 (6‬‬ ‫ַעד־ָמַ֖תי ָע ֵ ֥צל ׀ ִתּ ְשׁ ָ ֑כּב‬ ‫ת‬ ‫עד מתי עצל תש ָ ֑כּב‬ ‫‪Prov 8:21 (7‬‬ ‫ְלַהנְִ֖חיל א ֲֹה ַ ֥בי ׀ ֵ ֑ישׁ‬ ‫ת ז‬ ‫להנחיל אהבי ֵ ֑יש‬ ‫‪Job 40:9 (8‬‬ ‫ְוִאם־זְ֖רוַֹע ָכּ ֵ ֥אל ׀ ָ֑לְך‬ ‫ז‬ ‫]ואם זר[ וע כאל לך‬ ‫‪Song 1:13 (9‬‬ ‫ְצ֨רוֹר ַה ֤מּ ֹר ׀ דּוִֹד ֙י‬ ‫ז‬ ‫‪47‬‬ ‫צרור המר דודי‬ ‫‪Lam 2:1 (10‬‬ ‫ֵאיָכ֩ה יִָ֨עי ב ְבַּא ֤פּוֹ ׀ ֲא – דנָי‬ ‫‪τ‬‬ ‫איכה יעיב באפו ה׳‬ ‫‪Lam 2:7 (11‬‬ ‫זָ ֨נַח א־ד ָ ֤ני ׀ ִמזְ ְבּח ֙וֹ‬ ‫נ‬ ‫‪τ‬‬ ‫זנח א־דני מזבחו‬ ‫‪47 Kahle (Der masoretische Text, 100) seems to have omitted the zayin, in the course of his‬‬ ‫‪editing.‬‬

‫‪© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640‬‬

202

Lea Himmelfarb

Qoh 7:24 (12 ‫ְוָע ֥מ ֹק ׀ ָע ֖מ ֹק‬ ‫ז‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ועמק עמק‬ 1 Chr 3:1 (13 ‫ַה ְבּ֣כוֹר ׀ ַאְמ ֗נ ֹן‬ ‫הבכור אמנן‬ 1 Chr 3:1 (14 ‫ֵא֩ת ֲא֨רוֹן ָהֱאל ֹ ִ ֧הים ׀ ֛ה׳‬ ‫ז‬ ‫את ארון האלקים ה׳‬ 1 Chr 15:18 (15 ‫וִיִחי ֵ ֣אל ׀ ְוֻע ֡נִּי‬ ‫ת ז‬ ‫ויחיאל ועני‬ 2 Chr 10:16 (16 ‫וַיּ ָ ִ֣שׁיבוּ ָה ָ֣עם ֶאת־ַה ֶ ֣מּ ֶלְך ׀ ֵלא ֡מ ֹר‬ ‫וישיבו העם את המלך לאמר‬ 2 Chr 16:8 (17 ‫ָה֨יוּ ְל ַ ֧חי ִל ׀ ָל ֛ר ֹב‬ ‫היו לחיל לרב‬

In the Babylonian Berlin Ms Or. Qu. 680, there are seventeen units in which a disjunctive accent appears in the Babylonian Ms, at the point corresponding to the Tiberian paseq, while in thirty-six Babylonian units no mark corresponding to the Tiberian paseq appears. Thus, for instance, 48

‫ אשכל הכפר דודי‬compare ,(Song 1:14) ‫ֶא ְשׁ ֨כּ ֹל ַה ֤כּ ֶֹפר ׀ דּוִֹד ֙י‬ 49 ‫ עיני עיני‬compare ,(Lam 1:16) ‫ֵעיִ֤ני ׀ ֵעינִ ֙י‬ 50 ‫ ובני ישראל למספרם‬compare, (1 Chr 27:1) ‫וְּב ֵ֣ני יִ ְשָׂר ֵ ֣אל ְל ִֽמְס ָפָּ֡רם‬

That is to say, in Ms Berlin, which reflects the earliest stratum of the Babylonian accentuation system, a disjunctive accent occurs only one third of the time (17/53 instances) that a paseq appears in the Tiberian system. This relatively infrequent occurrence can, however, possibly be explained by the difficulties peculiar to the Babylonian system.51As is well known, the manuscripts belonging to the early 48 49 50 51

Bible-Hagiographa Codex Berlin, 125. Bible-Hagiographa Codex Berlin, 131. Bible-Hagiographa Codex Berlin, 175. See R. Shoshany, “Methodological Problems in the Study of the Babylonian Accentuation

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

203

The Tiberian Accentuation System

stratum of the Babylonian system often lack a written accent, so perhaps this is reason more instances of disjunctive accents corresponding to Tiberian paseqs have not been discovered. Additional units from nine other early Babylonian manuscripts in which the Babylonian unit corresponds to a Tiberian one containing a paseq were examined to discover the extent of the phenomenon. Exod 15:18 (18 ‫֥ה׳ ׀ י ְִמ ֖ל ְֹך‬ ‫ז ח‬ (Ms Ee 52)52 ‫ה׳ ימלך‬ Deut 9:21 (19 ‫וֶָא ְשׂ ֣ר ֹף א ֹ֣תוֹ ׀ ָבֵּא ֒שׁ‬ ‫ח ת‬ (Ms Ee 12)53 ‫ואשרף אתו באש‬ 1 Sam 11:7 (20 ‫ְבַּי֣ד ַה ַמְּלָא ִ֣כים ׀ ֵלאמ ֹ֒ר‬ υ ‫ני‬ (Ms Eb 57) ‫ביד המלאכים לאמר‬ Isa 3:7 (21 ‫י ִ ָשּׂ֩א ַב ֨יּוֹם ַה֤הוּא ׀ ֵלאמ ֹ֙ר‬ ‫ח‬ (Ms Eb 16)54 ‫ישא ביום ההוא לאמר‬ Isa 37:4 (22 ‫ֲא ֶשׁ֩ר ְשָׁל֨חוֹ ֶמֶלְך־ַא ֤שּׁוּר ׀ ֲאד ֹנָי ֙ו‬ ‫ח‬ (Ms Eb 51)55 ‫אשר שלחו מלך אשור אדניו‬

52

53 54 55

System,” in A. Dotan (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies (Heb.; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994), 69*– 76*; Shoshany, Babylonian Accentuation, 26 – 28. Yeivin, Geniza, 1:159; also A. Díez-Macho (Manuscritos hebreos y arameos de la Biblia: Contribución al estudio de las diversas tradiciones del texto del Antiguo Testamento [Studia Ephemerides “Agustinianum” 5; Roma, 1971], 239) places a disjunctive above the divine name. Yeivin, Geniza, 1:107. Yeivin, Geniza, 3:174. Compared with A. Alba-Cecilia, Biblia babilónica: Isaías. Edición crítica según manuscritos hebreos de puntuación babilónica (Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 28; Madrid: CSIC, 1980), 9. In Yeivin (Geniza, 4:308) the text is blurry. In Alba-Cecilia (Biblia babilónica: Isaías, 30) there are no accents in most of the verses including our verse.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

204

Lea Himmelfarb

Isa 66:20 (23 ‫ְוֵה ִ ֣ביאוּ ֶאת־ ָכּל־ֲאֵחי ֶ ֣כם ִמ ָכּל־ַהגּוִֹ֣ים ׀ ִמנְ ָ ֣ח ה ׀ ַל֡ה׳‬ ‫ת‬ (bE sM 17)56 ‫והביאו את כל אחיכם )מכל־הגוים מ(נחה לה׳‬ Ezek 33:25 (24 ‫ַעל־ַה ָ ֧דּם ׀ תּ ֹא ֵ ֛כלוּ‬ ‫ח ת‬ (Eb sM 10)57 ‫על הדם תאכלו‬ Ezek 35:12 (25 ‫ָשׁ ַ ֣מְע ִתּי ׀ ֶאת־ ָכּל־נָָֽאצוֶֹ֗תיך‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ח‬ (bE sM 10)58 ‫שמעתי את כל נאצותיך‬ Zeph 3:15 (26 ‫ֶ ֣מֶלך י ִ ְשָׂר ֵ ֤אל ׀ ֙ה׳‬ ‫ת‬ ‫ח‬ (bE sM 80)59 ‫מלך ישראל ה׳‬ 2 Chr 2:9 (27 ‫ְוִה ֵ֣נּ ה ַֽלח ְֹט ִ ֣בים ׀ ְלֹֽכְר ֵ ֣ת ׀ ָהֵעִ֡צים נַָת ִתּי ִח ֨ ִטּים ׀ ַמ ֝כּוֹת‬ τ ‫ת‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ח‬ (McE s 4)60 ‫והנה לחטבים לכרתי העצים נתתי חטים מכות‬

It can be concluded that disjunctive accents often occur in parallel to the Tiberian paseq in a broad array of early Babylonian manuscripts.

3.2.

Units with a paseq in the Tiberian system and their parallels in the late Babylonian system

The units in Ms Petersburg – which belongs to the late Babylonian system – where also compared to the corresponding Tiberian units containing the paseq:61 56 57 58 59

Yeivin, Geniza, 3:189. Compared with Alba-Cecilia, Biblia babilónica: Isaías, 69. Alba-Cecilia, Biblia babilónica: Ezequiel, 65. Alba-Cecilia, Biblia babilónica: Ezequiel, 73. Yeiven’s (Geniza, 4:400) version of the manuscript is blurry and effaced so I consulted Navarro-Peiro and Pérez-Castro, Biblia babilónica: Profetas Menores, 73. 60 Ms Firkovitch B, 1547; found in P. Kahle, Masoreten des Ostens: die ältesten punktierten Handschriften des Alten Testaments un der Targume (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1913; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1984), 91 and table 14. 61 H. L. Strack (ed.), The Hebrew Bible-Latter Prophets: the Babylonian Codex of Petrograd. Edited with Preface and Critical Annotations (1876; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1971). The influence of the Tiberian system is quite evident in the manuscript; as a vertical line is added to signify the paseq in twenty-one out of twenty-six of the paseqs in the book of Isaiah just like in the Tiberian system (not including the technical munah legarmeh) and the ˙ note in the folio mentions ‘‫פ‬.’

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

205

The Tiberian Accentuation System

Isa 19:16 (28 ‫ְוָח ַ ֣רד ׀ וָּפַ֗חד‬ ‫ח‬ ‫נ‬ ‫וחרד ופחד‬ Jer 17:25 (29 ‫ְמָל ִ֣כים ׀ ְו ָשִׂ֡רים‬ ‫ח‬ ‫נ‬ ‫מלכים ושרים‬ Jer 50:29 (30 ‫ַה ְשִׁ֣מיעוּ ֶאל־ ָבּ ֶ ֣בל ׀ ַ֠ר ִבּים‬ ‫נ ח‬ ‫השמיעו אל בבל רבים‬ Ezek 45:1 (31 ‫ָתִּרימ ֩וּ ְתרוּ ָ֨מה ַל֥ה׳ ׀ ק ֶֹד ֘שׁ‬ ‫ ני‬τ ‫תרימו תרומה לה׳ קדש‬ Ezek 48:1 (32 ‫ֶאל־ַי֣ד ֶדּ ֶֽרְך־ֶחְת ֣ל ֹן ׀ ְל ֽבוֹא־ֲחָ֡מת‬ ‫ח‬ ‫ח‬ ‫אל יד דרך חתלן לבוא חמת‬

It can be concluded from these examples that the late Babylonian system possesses a disjunctive accent that corresponds to the Tiberian paseq. In Ms Petersburg, the data demonstrate that about half of the units (fourteen of thirty) possess a disjunctive accent corresponding to the Tiberian paseq.

3.3.

The Babylonian Masorah Notes

Up to this point, the study has presented examples that show that the Babylonian manuscripts have a disjunctive accent corresponding to the Tiberian paseq, which also instructs the reader to pause. Additionally, the Babylonian Masorah contains notes that instruct the reader regarding pauses: (Ms Mas)62 ‫לייי לבדו דק ומפסקין לה׳‬

This note considers the word combination – ‫ – לה' לבדו‬and asserts ‫דק ומפסקין‬, meaning that one should read and then pause after ‫לייי‬. The Masorah note mandates a pause at the same point as the Tiberian disjunctive accent: 62 Yeivin, Geniza, 2:394.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

206

Lea Himmelfarb

(Exod 22:19) ‫ ַל֖ה׳ ְלַב ֽדּוֹ‬63 ‫י ִבְּל ִ ֥תּ‬

Yosef Ofer cites more Babylonian Masorah notes that declare ‫ אפסוקי‬or ‫;מפסקין‬64 however, a Tiberian manuscript with a paseq or disjunctive accent that parallels them has not been found.

4.

Summary

All scholars are aware that the Babylonian and Tiberian systems of accentuation differ in so far as their forms, quantity, and the placement of their accents are concerned. This study presents evidence showing that 85 % of the time, the point of division and the accentuation adopted by the Tiberian system continue the traditions of the early Babylonian system, and that 99 % of the time, they reflect the decisions made by the late Babylonian one. Even the Tiberian paseq preserves the pause required of the reader by the disjunctive accent used by the Babylonian system. The manuscripts containing the Babylonian Masorah’s earliest stratum have a level of correspondence with the Tiberian Masorah of around 33 %, while the later stratum has an even higher level of correspondence – reaching about 50 %. Thus, it can be concluded that the Tiberian accentuation system both preserves and reflects, to a significant degree, the Babylonian accentuation system. Indeed it is astonishing to see that there is a high degree of congruence between the Tiberian Masoretic tradition and the Babylonian system, whereas the paseq pause correspondences are much lower. I assume that this is due not only to the scribal habits of early Babylonian copyists but particularly to the late addition of the paseq to the Tiberian Masoretic tradition.

63 And see Himmelfarb, The Paseq, 57 ff.; Y. Ofer, The Babylonian Masora of the Pentateuch: Its Principle and Methods (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001), 220 – 221, 555 n. 192. 64 On the term ‫אפסוקי‬, found in the Babylonian Masoretic notes, see Ofer, The Babylonian Masora, 220 – 221.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Yosef Ofer Bar-Ilan University, Israel

Three Enigmatic Notes from the Babylonian Masorah Comparing the Language of the Hebrew Bible and the Mishnah*

The task of the Masorah is to preserve the biblical text and to guard it from errors and disruptions. That is true for the Masoretic notes that were created in Tiberias and were maintained all over the Jewish world and it is also true for the Babylonian Masorah, which survived only in a few manuscripts and Genizah fragments. From my edition of the Babylonian Masorah to the Pentateuch, I estimate that only a sixth of the work is reflected in the manuscripts extant today.1 Both the Babylonian Masoretic and the Tiberian notes are meant to preserve their own biblical tradition. Therefore, differences between the two centres, in terms of consonantal text or language tradition, brought about changes in the Masoretic notes. In quantitative terms, however, these differences are not extensive, and therefore the great majority of the Masoretic notes can be conveyed in an identical manner in both systems. The Masoretes of Babylon and Tiberias also used different Masoretic terms, language and ways of describing the biblical text. The Tiberian Masoretes wrote their notes on the pages of the Bible text: the top and bottom margins of the page were used for longer comments, collectively known as the Masorah Magna (MM), while the brief notations inserted in between the columns of the text are known as the Masorah Parva (MP). The Babylonian Masorah of the Pentateuch adopted a different approach: rather than being written around the biblical text, the notes were compiled as a separate work. Thus, there is no distinction here between MM and MP. The Babylonian Masorah was a fixed text, as opposed to the Tiberian Masorah in which each manuscript featured a different selection of Masoretic notes, in differing formulations. The Babylonian Masorah proceeds verse by verse, indicating the first word of the verse followed by the Masoretic notes pertaining to that verse. Such Masoretic notes collect different in* A Hebrew version of this article appeared in a booklet published in memory of Israel Yeivin: Y. Ofer, Le-zikhro shel Yisrael Yeivin (Heb.; Jerusalem, 2012), 36 – 45. I would like to thank Prof. Shlomo Naeh, who read the article and made important comments on it. 1 Y. Ofer, The Babylonian Masora of the Pentateuch, Its Principles and Methods (Heb.; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

208

Yosef Ofer

˘

formation: they count the occurrences of words and phrases in the whole Bible, in a part of it or in one of the biblical books; they refer to the plene or defective spellings of a word in the Bible; some of them are ‘local notes,’ that is, they describe the spelling of a word in the verse under discussion without saying anything about other occurrences of this word; others indicate that some word is always written plene or defective. The last two cases are especially rare in the Tiberian Masorah. In this study I will deal with three Masoretic notes, already discussed in a previous work, that compare the language of the Hebrew Bible to the language of the Mishnah.2 My interest in those notes lies in the fact that they are very enigmatic, taking into consideration their exceptional topic. The notes appear in the Babylonian Masorah to Gen 19:30; Exod 25:25 and Deut 4:31. The first one, about the word me ”r”, appears in Ms Cambridge, T-S D1,5 (5EB), p. 1r., and was published for the first time by Gerard E. Weil.3 The other two, about the words tefah (Exod 25:25) and yasˇhitek” (Deut 4:31), appear ˙ ˙ in Ms Saint Petersburg National Library Evr. II B 1549 (=11EB), p. 7r and 16v, and were published for the first time by Christian D. Ginsburg.4 All three notes were also cited and commented by Israel Yeivin.5 However, due to the difficulty of the three notes, none of the scholars explained them satisfactorily.6 For this reason, in this article I will attempt to explain them.

The Note on me årå in Gen 19:30 ˘

1.

In the MP of Ms 5EB to this word it is said: .[ ] =5 8DMB 8LFB5 4LKB ˘

Translation: [In the] Bible: bam ”r”; [In the] Mishnah: bi[ ].7

The note is fragmentary and undecipherable. In fact, although Weil and Yeivin cited it, they did not explain it because of its fragmentation. Weil reads it in this sense: “Mishnah mi[ ],” recalling the saying of the Sages: “Shall he who is 2 Ofer, Babylonian Masora, 303 – 305. 3 G. E. Weil, “Nouveaux fragments in¦dits de la Massorah Magna babylonienne (II),” Textus 6 (1986), 77 – 78. 4 C. D. Ginsburg, The Massorah Compiled from Manuscripts (4 vols.; repr. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1975), 3:227, 252. 5 I. Yeivin, The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization (Heb.; 2 vols.; Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1985), 826, 904, 562 n. 12. 6 For instance, Ginsburg did not understand it at all and printed “Miqra tofah matnita tofah” ˙ without any difference. He did not even recognize that the Masorah that he ˙had printed was Babylonian. Yeivin gave a full explanation only to Exod 25:25 (as will be seen below). 7 Ofer, The Babylonian Masora, 407.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

209

Three Enigmatic Notes from the Babylonian Masorah

˘

˘

neither a sprinkler nor the son of a sprinkler say to a sprinkler son of a sprinkler, Your water is ‘cave water’ and your ashes are oven ashes?” (t. Ber 28a; y. Ber 4:1 7d).8 For his part, Yeivin reads it: “Mishnah bi[ ],” but he asserted that because of the fragmentary character of the manuscript, the meaning of the note cannot be determined.9 In my opinion, two possible interpretations of the note may be suggested, but neither one is sufficiently well based. One possibility is to complete the note as “Bible: bamme ”r” (‘in the cave’); Mishnah: bim[ ”r”] (‘in a cave’),” i. e. the word always appears in the Hebrew Bible in the definite form and in the Mishnah in the indefinite form. Indeed, all nine occurrences of the word in the Hebrew Bible are in the definite form. However, in the manuscripts and printed editions of the Mishnah, all five occurrences of the word are also in the definite form,10 and it is unreasonable to assume that in the Babylonian tradition they were all indefinite. The second possibility is that the Babylonian vocalization of the word me ”r” was different in the Bible and in the Mishnah: In the Bible the letter ayin was vocalized with a patah and in the Mishnah with a qamaz, and perhaps that is ˙ what the note wanted to say. This possibility is supported by the vocalization (with patah under the ayin) of the word NL(F(B8( in Jer 7:11 according to Ms Eb ˙ 10.11 ˘

˘

˘

2.

The Note on tefah. in Exod 25:25

In the MP of Ms 11EB to this word it is said: 12

.;H(üû 4N=DNB .;H(*9ü 4LKB

Translation: [In the] Bible: tofah ; [in the] Mishnah: tefah. ˙ ˙

According to this note the measure tefah, ‘hand’s breadth,’ is pronounced tefah ˙ ˙ in Mishnaic Hebrew, but tofah in Biblical Hebrew. ˙ The word ;Hü appears seven times in the Bible: in five cases it is vocalized as

˘

8 8@KB LH4 ýLH49 8LFB =B ý=B=B 8:B C5 8:B@ LB== 8:B C5 4@9 8:B 4@ 9D=4M =B (Weil, “Nouveaux fragments,” 77 – 78). 9 Yeivin, The Babylonian Vocalization, 904. 10 m. Erub 5:9 (twice); m. Yeb 16:4; m. Naz 9:2; m. Makhsh 4:5. The definite form can only be recognized in vocalized sources, such as the printed Mishnah and also Ms Kaufmann and a Genizah fragment with Babylonian vocalization of tractate Makhshirin (Cambridge, T-S E1,94). 11 This vocalization is cited by Yeivin as an example of exceptional and strange one: “A patah. beneath the ayin surprisingly, and maybe a segolite structure,” see Yeivin, The Babylonian Vocalization, 904. 12 The vocalization is not in the manuscript; see Ofer, The Babylonian Masora, 452.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

210

Yosef Ofer

˘

tofah,13 and in two occurrences as tefah, which is how the word is vocalized in the ˙ ˙ Mishnah. Those two occurrences are in verses that describe Solomon’s basin in the Temple (1 Kgs 7:26; 2 Chr 4:5) This is the only one of the three notes studied in this contribution that is relatively comprehensible. Yeivin explains it as follows: according to Babylonian tradition, all seven occurrences of the word are pronounced tofah and not tefah. ˙ ˙ Evidence for the Babylonian version in the verses in Kings and Chronicles may be found in two manuscripts containing Babylonian super-vocalization.14 He also indicates that Saadya Gaon knew this Masoretic note and quoted it in his work Explanation of the Seventy Isolated Words.15 In it, when dealing with the hapax legomenon yabbelet, ‘a wen, a kind of wart,’ in Lev 22:22, he points out that the word also appears in the Mishnah, in tractate Erubin (10:13), but it is vocalized there as yabbolet and not yabbelet. In fact, that is how the word is vocalized in the better manuscripts of the Mishnah.16 Saadya goes on to remark that the difference between yabbolet and yabbelet is like the difference between tefah and tofah, quoting the Masorah on this point: ˙ ˙

And the blemish in beasts is a wen. As they said “anything blind, or injured, or maimed or with a wen” (Lev 22:22)… as they said in the Mishnah “a wen is removed in the Temple, but not in the provinces” (Erub 10:13), but it is called yabbelet instead of yabbolet, just like they said about “Mishnah, Bible – tefah and tofah.”17 ˙ ˙

This last sentence was interpreted by Yeivin as a quotation of the Masoretic note.18 However, it should be noted that Saadya’s quotation is not identical with the language of the Babylonian Masorah and that in two of the manuscripts of

13 Exod 25:25; 37:12; Ezek 40:5 and 40:43; 43:13. 14 Yeivin, The Babylonian Vocalization, 826. See Ms Cambridge, T-S B2,4 (=Kb5) for the verse in Kings and St. Petersburg, National Library Evr. II B 1547 (=Ec4) for the verse in Chronicles. 15 N. Allony, “The Seventy Isolated Words by Rav Saadya Gaon” (Heb.), in S. Loewinger, J. Somogyi, and A. Scheiber, (eds.), Goldzier Memorial Volume (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 1958), 2:26 – 27 (repr. N. Allony, Mehqerei Lashon ve-Sifrut, I: Pirqei Saadya Gaon [Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1986], 52 – 53). 16 The form yabbolet appears in Mss Kaufmann, Parma B (De Rossi 497) and Parma A (De Rossi 138). In the last Ms there is one occurrence of the form yabbelet (m. Erub 10:13). See also G. Birnbaum, The Language of the Mishnah in the Cairo Geniza: Phonology and Morphology (Heb.; Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2008), 284, 298; Y. Breuer, The Hebrew in the Babylonian Talmud according to the Manuscripts of Tractate Pesahim (Heb.; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2002), 151, 268 and in the sources quoted there. 17 8DMB@4 =H 9@4K 4B? […] N@5= 94 I9L; 94 L95M 94 N@5= [8@]9K? .N@û5,û=( A=485@4 =H 5=F@49 A8@9K? ,N@95= [A4KB N]@5= @4KN 48D4 4@4 ,’8D=7B5 4@ @54 M7KB5 [N@95= C]=?N9;’ . ;H9ü9 4LKB ;Hü 8DMB@4 =H

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

211

Three Enigmatic Notes from the Babylonian Masorah

Seventy Isolated Words that Nehemiah Allony cites, the wording differs even more: ;H9ü9 ;Hü @’NB N@95=[9] N@5= @4KN 48D4 [email protected]

3.

The Note on yasˇh. itekå in Deut 4:31

The MP of Ms 11EB, 16v, on this word says:20 [2 Chr 35:21] ý@ @7; .[Deut 4:31] A9;L @4 =? . K7 ’5 ý)Nû=;%M!1=( .8=D9L65 KH;ND 4LKB5 L5E7 CB .8DMB5 A7 4LKB5 A6 Translation: The verb yasˇhitek”, ‘he will destroy you,’ occurs twice in the Bible: ˙ Deut 4:31 and 2 Chr 35:21. Gam (=also?) in the Bible; dam (=blood?) in the Mishnah. Whoever meditates in the Bible [and reads it according to his own opinion] – may he be choked in his throat.

˘

The third Masoretic note is also strange and difficult to penetrate. The first part of the note cites the occurrences of the verb yasˇhitek” in the Bible. With regards ˙ to the second part, it is unclear whether it is a continuation of the first or a separate note. This section indicates two ‘frightening’ things: the blood and the choking in the throat against whoever reads in the Bible according to his own opinion. Therefore, the note is incomprehensible. Yeivin tries to clarify the meaning of the word KH ;ND and that of the threat. He proposes reading KD ;ND, ‘be choked,’ instead of the word KH;ND.21 Moreover, he suggests a speculative hypothesis that involves a major correction of the text of the Masorah : “And perhaps it should be : 8DMB5 [4L]6=7 4LKB5 [4L]6=D (nigra’22 in the Bible ; digra’ in the Mishnah) and the meaning is to distinguish between ý) û – and ý! ) –.” The words nigra’ and digra’ are terms from the Babylonian Masorah, equivalent in usage to the more familiar Tiberian terms mil el, ‘penultimate stress,’ and milera , ‘ultimate stress.’23 According to the proposed correction, the ˘

18 19 20 21

Yeivin, The Babylonian Vocalization, 826, n. 36. Ms Oxford Bod. Heb. e.74 and Ms Cambridge T-S Arab G 2/2. See n. 15. Ofer, The Babylonian Masora, 304, 548. Yeivin compares this word to b. Mak 11a: “Whoever knows that and does not say it, may he be choked in his throat [9D9L65 KD;= – 9LB94 9D=49 8: L57 F79=8 @?];” see Yeivin, The Babylonian Vocalization, 562, n. 12. M. Sokoloff explains that the verb nithappaq (found only here) means ‘to be choked,’ and suggests connecting this root with K54,˙ ‘to embrace;’ M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Ramat-Gan/ Baltimore-London: Bar Ilan University Press/The John Hopkins University Press, 2002), 478, v. KH;. 22 According to Yeivin’s corrections, the words gam has no connection to ‘also’ and the word dam has no connection to ‘blood.’ 23 Yeivin deals at length with the pair nigra’ and digra’ in his book (The Babylonian Vocalization, 246 – 253). See also an extensive discussion of these names and their roles in S. Morag,

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

212

Yosef Ofer

pronunciation in biblical Hebrew is ý)Nû=;%M!1=(, with a penultimate stress; but in Mishnaic Hebrew the form has an ultimate stress, ý!N)=;%M!1=(. In my view, this interpretation presents two problems. The proposed reading substantially changes the text of the Masoretic note: 8DMB5 A7 4LKB5 A6 instead of 8DMB5 6=7 4LKB5 6=D. Secondly, the difference in the pronunciation of the second person object form is a standard distinction between biblical and Mishnaic language, so why then point it out? And why was such severe language used to condemn whoever might mispronounce the expression? Taking into account these problems, I looked for another explanation of this Masoretic note and I made an interesting find. t. Taan 2:10 deals with 2 Chr 35:21, the verse mentioned in the Masoretic note: A sword that passes from place to place, even if it is a sword of peace, they will warn about it, and it goes without saying, a sword of destruction. And there is no sword of peace like that of Pharaoh Nekho, and that righteous man was harmed, that is [referring to] Josiah. As it is written: [Nekho] sent messengers to him saying, “What have I to do with you?… and it is God’s will that I hurry” (2 Chr 35:21) – I ascend at the word of the Holy One. “Refrain then from interfering with god who is with me” – this is an expression of idolatry.24

In the passage, Pharaoh Nekho tried to convince Josiah not to go to war against him, and he mentions God twice (2 Chr 35:21).25 According to the Tosefta, he refers both to the God of Israel and to his own god. When Pharaoh says “and it is God’s will that I hurry,” he alludes to the God of Israel, and the name is a holy one. But when he says “Refrain, then from interfering with god who is with me, that he will not destroy you,” he means his own god, i. e. an expression of idolatry. Here the two mentions of God are respectively interpreted as ‘holy’ in the case of the first name in the verse and ‘profane’ in the second one. This opinion may

˘

“Some Aspects of the Methodology and Terminology of the Early Massoretes” (Heb.), Leshonenu 38 (1974), 49 – 77. 24 .N9DFL9H @M 5L; ’B9@ ý=LJ C=49 ,8=@F C=F=LNB ,A9@M @M 5L; ’=H4 ,A9KB@ A9KBB NL59F8 5L; 8B A=?4@B 9=@4 ;@M=9’ :’DM .98=M4= 8: ,4988 K=7J8 N4 8HüM9 ,8?D 8FLH @MB ýN9= A9@M @M 5L; ý@ C=49 .:”F C9M@ 8: – ’=7BF LM4 A=8@4B ý@ @7;’ .8@9F =D4 M79K8 =HB – ’=D@85@ LB4 A=@49 ý@9 =@ 25 At any rate the meaning of the two occurrences of ‘god’ in this passage is an ancient question about which the Sages held different opinions. According to the Aramaic Targum both occurrences refer to idolatry as does the subsequent occurrence in v. 22: LB4 =N%9) F#ü(9! =BF7 KE=F @F @=@B =7 4L=6; =B6NH@ @=5K 4@9 ýN=@5;N 4@9 4N)9) F#ü( CB9 =DB ý@ K9EH C97? =N958LE@ k=Nú9) F#ü( […] . The meaning of the word 4N9Fü is ‘idol.’ The contrary opinion is that in Soph 4:23: “And it is God’s will that I hurry” (2 Chr 35:21) – holy. “Refrain, then from interfering with God who is with me” (2 Chr 35:21) –holy. The words of R. Yose son of R. Yehudah” (Seven Minor Treatises. Sefer Torah; Mezuzah; Tefillin; Zizit; Abadim; Kutim; Gerim. And Treatise Soferim II. Edited from Manuscripts with an Introduction, Notes, Variants and Translation by Michael Higger [New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1930], 149). 26 Two additional words were added to the verse as quoted: “Refrain, then from interfering with

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Three Enigmatic Notes from the Babylonian Masorah

213

have been supported by the reading of yasˇhituk” in the plural form found in Ms ˙ London (British Library, Add. 27296).26 On the basis of this variant, the passage in the Tosefta should be understood interpreting the name God in “and it is God’s will that I hurry” as holy, since the verb is singular (LB(4)); however in the expression “Refrain, then from interfering with God/gods who is/are with me, that they will not destroy you,” the reference is to the idolatry, because the verb is plural (ý)lN=;%M!1=(). Those who held the opinion that the second occurrence was holy severely opposed this reading, because God is usually referred to in the singular, not in the plural. Taking into account the interpretation in the Tosefta, it seems that the Masorah was concerned with the word itself, yasˇhitek”, and not with a general ˙ grammatical matter in rabbinic language. Therefore, I suggest a minor correction for the second part of the Masoretic note: .8=D9L65 KH;ND 4LKB5 L5E7 CB !8DMB5 [read: A6] A7 4LKB5 A6 Translation: [This form is valid] in the Bible, as well as in Mishnah. Whoever meditates in the Bible [and reads according to his own opinion] – may he be choked in his throat.

The goal of the Masorah would be to show that there is no distinction between the reading of the verse in the Bible and its citation in the Tosefta. In both cases the word should be read yasˇhitek” (ý)Nû=;%M!1=(), in the singular. ˙ In my opinion, the treatment of the verse in the Tosefta is in the background of the Masoretic note. Some read in the Tosefta “and they will not destroy you (yasˇhituk”; ýlN=;M=)” in the plural, and this reading might have affected the ˙ reading of the verse in the Book of Chronicles. The Masoretic note averted this eventuality, saying: in fact one should read “and he will not destroy you (yaˇshitek”; ý)Nû=;%M!1=()” in the singular form both in the Bible and in the Tosefta. ˙ However, anyone who would confound the verse, correcting it according to his opinion, is to be condemned forcefully : “Whoever meditates in the Bible [and reads according to his own opinion] – may he be choked.”

Summary The Tiberian Masorah only deals with the versions of the Hebrew Bible. The scope of the Babylonian Masorah is wider, referring also to the Targum and to the relations between the biblical text and its Targum, as can be seen from Klein’s God/gods who is/are with me, that they not destroy you (4*@9 ý)lN=;%M!1=().” These words are also cited in Ms Erfurt, but in abbreviated form: ’M= 4@9, so it cannot be determined if it is a singular form or a plural one; see S. Lieberman, Tosefta Mo’ed (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962), 333, textual variants, l. 66.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

214

Yosef Ofer

work.27 The comments analyzed in this article prove that the Babylonian Masorah also worked with Tannaic Hebrew and compared it to biblical Hebrew. Most of the material from the Babylonian Masorah is unknown, and it can therefore be assumed that many comments of this sort were lost.

27 M. L. Klein, The Masorah to Targum Onqelos (Binghampton, NY: Global Publications/ Binghamton University, 2000).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

David Marcus Jewish Theological Seminary, USA

The Practical Use of the Masorah for the Elucidation of the Story of Samuel’s Birth

I In various sessions of the International Organization of Masoretic Studies (IOMS) meetings at the Society of Biblical Literature there have been pleas to try and integrate the Masorah into biblical studies, and some early attempts have indeed been made in this direction.1 There have, of course, been many studies on the importance of the Masorah in the area of biblical Hebrew grammar,2 as well as a few articles showing how the Masorah can be helpful in the interpretation of some biblical passages,3 but these articles have usually focused on isolated examples. It is the intention of this paper to show that the Masorah can be used as a supplementary tool for elucidating a unified Hebrew text. I will demonstrate my argument by taking as my example the well-known story of Samuel’s birth that occurs in the first chapter of the Book of Samuel. I will endeavor to show that the Masorah can assist the elucidation of this text by ‘determining its parameters,’ by pointing out its ‘connectiveness’ to other texts, and by occasionally contributing to its ‘exegesis’. In addition, the Masoretic notes offer ‘opportunities for discussion’ of significant Hebrew words or phrases to be found in the story. The story of the birth of Samuel is an ideal one to use as an example for two reasons. The first is that the story is a literary gem containing riveting themes: a 1 See, e. g., D. S. Mynatt and T. G. Crawford, “Integrating the Masorah into the Classroom: a Tribute to Page Kelley,” PRSt 28 (2001), 373 – 383, and more recently A. Dotan, “Masora’s Contribution to Biblical Studies. Revival of an Ancient Tool,” in A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007 (Brill: Leiden, 2010), 57 – 69. 2 See I. Yeivin, The Biblical Masorah (Heb.; Studies in Language 3; Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2003), 126 – 127, and the bibliography cited there, and now E. Mart†nContreras and G. Seijas de los R†os-Zarzosa, Masora: La transmisiûn de la tradiciûn de la Biblia Hebrea (Estella, Navarra: Verbo Divino, 2010), 201 – 211. 3 Such as E. Fern‚ndez-Tejero, “Masora y Ex¦gesis,” in N. Fern‚ndez-Marcos et al. (eds.), Simposio b†blico espaÇol (Salamanca, 1982) (Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 1984), 183 – 191, and the bibliography cited in n. 1; and E. Mart†n-Contreras, “Masoretic and Rabbinic Lights on the Word =5%8), Ruth 3:15: 58= or 495?,” VT 59 (2009), 257 – 265.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

216

David Marcus

distinguished man having two wives one of whom has children and the other is barren; the man loves the barren one more than the other ; the rivalry and bitterness that exists between the two women; a vow by the barren women with Nazirite overtones that, should God grant her a male child, she would dedicate him to the Temple; the eventual birth of a child to the barren woman, his naming, and subsequent dedication at the Temple; all of these themes and many more are jam packed into twenty-eight verses of the first chapter, and all of them have parallels and allusions elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. The second reason that the book of Samuel is an excellent choice for illustration is from the point of view of the availability of Masoretic tools. Because not only is that book extant in three of our earliest Tiberian manuscripts, in the Cairo Codex, the Aleppo Codex, and the Leningrad Codex, but the Masorah of all three are available in splendid editions. Both the Masorah parva and Masorah magna of Samuel from the Cairo Codex have been published by Federico P¦rez-Castro;4 and both Masorahs from the Aleppo Codex have been published by Menahem Cohen in the Keter Mikra’ot Gedolot.5 As for the Leningrad Codex, its Masorah parva has been part of the Biblia Hebraica series since the third edition of 1937, but its Masorah magna was published in a separate volume for the fourth edition Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS)6 by G¦rard E. Weil.7 The current production underway of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) does have both the Masorah parva and Masorah magna together in one volume with notes and commentaries,8 but unfortunately the book of Samuel has not yet been published. 4 F. P¦rez Castro (ed.), Samuel (vol. 2 of El cûdice de Profetas de El Cairo. Ediciûn de su texto y masoras dirigida por—y realizada por : C. MuÇoz-Abad, E. Fern‚ndez-Tejero, Ma. T. OrtegaMonasterio, Ma. J. de Azc‚rraga-Servert y E. Carrero-Rodr†guez; Colecciûn Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros”: Madrid: Instituto “Arias Montano” del CSIC, 1983). 5 M. Cohen (ed.), Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘Haketer.’ A Revised and Augmented Scientific edition of ‘Mikra’ot Gedolot.’ Based on the Aleppo Codex and early Medieval MSS: Samuel I & II (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1993). To date ten volumes have been published, but the entire edition is available electronically. 6 Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ediderunt K. Elliger et W. Rudolph, Textum Masoreticum curavit H. P. Rüger, Masoram elaboravit G. E. Weil. 5th. ed. rev. by A. Schenker (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997). 7 G. E. Weil, Massorah Gedolah Iuxta Codicem Leningradensem B19a (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971). 8 The following fascicles have been published so far : Biblia Hebraica Quinta: General Introduction and Megilloth/ cum apparatu critico novis curis elaborato participantibus, R. Althann [et al.]. /Ruth, J. de Waard. /Canticles, P. B. Dirksen./ Qoheleth, Y. A. P. Goldman. /Lamentations, R. Shäfer. /Esther, M. Saebø (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2002); D. Marcus, Ezra and Nehemiah (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006); C. McCarthy, Deuteronomy (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007); J. de Waard, Proverbs (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2008); A. Gelston, The Twelve Minor Prophets (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010); N. Fern‚ndez-Marcos, Judges (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Practical Use of the Masorah

217

Nevertheless, for the book of Samuel the student has now available the Masorah from all three codices and can utilize one or more of all of the above mentioned helpful tools. Because BHS is still the most used critical Hebrew Bible by biblical students and scholars, I will use it as the base text for the Masorah parva notes, and utilize the three other sources, namely P¦rez-Castro, Cohen, and Weil when referring to the Masorah magna notes.

II The first area in which the Masorah is helpful is in establishing the parameters of the text. With every story in the Hebrew Bible the question of where does the story begin and end has to be addressed.9 The student cannot always rely on the chapter divisions because, as is well known, these have medieval origins and were originally based on the Vulgate.10 The ancient Masoretic divisions for the Prophets were twofold: these included the smaller petuhot and setumot para˙ graph divisions, and the larger seder divisions. In our Tiberian manuscripts, there are paragraph divisions at the end of chapter one, though there is no agreement as to the nature of this division. The three major manuscripts differ in this respect. The Cairo Codex and the Leningrad Codex have a petuhah division, ˙ but the Aleppo Codex has a setumah. However, all three manuscripts have a larger seder division that includes Hannah’s song that ends at 1 Sam 2:10.11 Recent research has shown that the purpose of the seder division in the Prophets was to act literally as section dividers for reading or study purposes.12 The seders do not always correspond even to clearly identifiable stories (for example, there is a seder break interrupting the David and Goliath story,13 the David and Abigail story,14 and the David and Bathsheba story).15 Nevertheless, the seder divisions do represent a significant Masoretic reading tradition, and this tradition is reflected in the fact that this seder was selected be read in the Synagogue as a 9 J. Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 78 (1969), 1 – 18, esp. 8 – 9; H. C. Brichto, Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 14 – 15. 10 See D. Marcus, “Alternate Chapter Divisions in the Light of the Masoretic Sections,” HS 44 (2003), 119 – 128, esp. 119. 11 As is characteristic for seder divisions in the Prophets and Writings, the seder sign is placed one verse before the actual end of the seder, see Y. Ofer, “The Masoretic Divisions (Sedarim) in the Books of the Prophets and Hagiographa” (Heb.), Tarbiz 58 (1988 – 1989), 156 – 163. 12 Ofer, “The Masoretic Divisions,” 160 – 172. 13 The David and Goliath story in 1 Sam 17 is split between the tenth (1 Sam 16:19 – 17:37) and the eleventh seder (1 Sam 17:37 – 18:14). 14 The David and Abigail story (1 Sam 25) is split between the sixteenth (1 Sam 24:21 – 25:33) and the seventeenth seder (1 Sam 25:33 – 26:25). 15 The David and Bathsheba story (2 Sam 11 – 12) is split between the twenty-fifth (2 Sam 10:12 – 12:13) and the twenty-sixth seder (2 Sam 12:13 – 13:25).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

218

David Marcus

haftarah (the liturgical reading from the Prophets) for the first day of Rosh Hashanah, the New Year.16 Thematically, the addition of Hannah’s song to the story of Samuel’s birth is very appropriate since the song mostly describes reversals, for example, ABú|LB!.Ge @=H,%M!1B( L=M%1F#B(l a=L%|B 89) 8=! , ‘The Lord makes poor and makes rich, He casts down, He also lifts high’ (1 Sam 2:7). The effect of including Hannah’s song with the rest of the narrative is that there is a clear reference to Hannah’s situation as described in the first chapter in the reversal statement in 1 Sam 2:5, 8@)@)B!4+ A=D% 5,) N5,(L(9! 8F)5!M%1 87)@!=) 8L)K)F# 7F(, ‘while the barren woman bears seven, the mother of many is forlorn.’

III The second area where the Masorah is most useful is in the area of intertextuality. This is particularly so in the case of doublets when there is often a direct reference in the Masorah parva in the form of a catchword or catchwords to the other occurrence of a word or phrase elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.17 These references or catchwords are printed in P¦rez Castro’s edition of the Cairo Codex and in Cohen’s edition of Mikra’ot Gedolot, but unfortunately these catchwords have not been included in the third edition of Biblia Hebraica (BH3) nor BHS (though they will appear in BHQ). For example, in BHS there is a Masorah parva note on the phrase in verse 1, 7;)4û a=4% =8%=! 9( , a note that tells us that this phrase occurs twice. The notation is the letter ’5 with the characteristic small Masoretic dot indicating that this is the numeral ‘two.’ The same note appears in the Cairo Codex, but here there is an addition to the numeral two, namely the catchword 8F)L!J,)B%. The catchword 8F)L!J,)B% comes from Judg 13:2, thereby alerting the reader to the fact that the second occurrence of this phrase is to be found in the story of the birth of Samson. The Masoretes thus allow us to connect the two birth narratives, that of the birth of Samuel with the story of the birth of Samson. In both stories there is a connection of similar themes: a description of the hero’s father, the barrenness of the hero’s mother, the Nazirite themes, and the eventual birth of the hero. Similarly, at Judg 13:2 in the Cairo Codex at 7;)4û a=4% =8%=! 9( there are the catchwords A=% N(B)L)8).CB% referring the reader back to the first verse in Samuel, which starts with A=% N(B)L)8).CB% 7;)4û a=4% =8%=! 9( . Thus the Cairo Codex, alone of all the Tiberian mss gives connective catchwords between the two texts of Judges 13 and 1 Samuel 1. 16 This connection is unusual because in general there is no connection between the sedarim and the haftarot, see Ofer, “The Masoretic Divisions,” 170 – 171. 17 See D. Marcus, The Masora Parva Catchwords in the Leningrad Codex. E-Monograph in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 12 (2007). Online: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol12/ Marcus2007.pdf.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Practical Use of the Masorah

219

This intertextual feature of the Masorah allows us at times to appreciate the literary features of the text that we might otherwise have ignored. A good example is the Masorah parva note in the Leningrad Codex on the phrase N;(e AMú1 A=M%1D) =N,úM!1 at 1 Sam 1:2. The note given in BHS is that this phrase occurs twice.18 The other occurrence of this phrase happens to be at Gen 4:19, where the Leningrad Codex has a Masorah parva note of ’5, that is the numeral ‘two’, followed by the catchwords A=M%1D) =N,úM!1 *9@9! , which directly connects the phrase with the phrase in 1 Samuel since A=M%1D) =Nú, M!1 *9@9! occurs in 1 Sam 1:2. Gen 4 :19 has to do with Lamech and his two wives, Adah and Zillah, 8@,)J% N=D% Mú, 18( AMú19! 87)F) N ;(e8) AMú1. Adah is mentioned first, then Zillah, and the text goes on to describe that Adah gave birth to children (Gen 4:20) 87)F) 7@ûNú, 9( , and also Zillah gave birth to children, 87)@!=) 498%.A6( 8@,)J%9! (Gen 4:22.) In both cases, of the mention of the women and their giving birth, the order in the text is Adah first, then Zillah, the literary notation of which is A, B, A’, B’. However, if we go back to our Samuel passage, we see that when Elkanah’s two wives are named, the order is first Hannah and Peninah second (8D,) D% H,! N=D% M,ú18( AMú19! 8D,) ;( N;(4( AMú1) but the giving birth of children is described in reverse order: it is Peninah who has children, but Hannah does not (A=7%@)=! C=4ú 8D,) ;(@!l A=7%@)=! 8D,) D% H!@% =8%=! 9( ). In this manner we are informed that the first wife mentioned Hannah did not, as we would have expected from the Adah/Zillah story, have children. This is a classic example of chiasmus of the type A, B, B’, A’, a well-known rhetorical feature of Hebrew narrative where the A’, in this case Hannah, is emphasized.19 Had the Masorah not alerted us to the parallel in Genesis 4, we may well have overlooked this literary feature.

IV The third area where the Masorah can be of use in exegesis is in clarification of a term which seems to be difficult. This is the case with the Masoretic note on =N%L)H!4û at 1 Sam 1:1. The word =N%L)H!4û comes at the very end of the verse, and is usually translated ‘an Ephramite.’ But it has already been stated that Elkanah was a resident from the hills of Ephraim, A=% L)H!4û L8(Bú, so a repetition of this fact at the end of his long genealogy would seem to be superfluous. However, the Masorah tells us that there are two other references to this word. The three references are at 1 Sam 1:1, 1 Sam 17:12, and at 1 Kgs 11:26. In addition, this Masorah notes the 18 There is an error in BHS here which states that the second reference is at Gen 4:17. 19 See A. R. Ceresko, “The Chiastic Word Pattern in Hebrew,” CBQ 38 (1976), 303 – 311, and J. Milgrom, Numbers: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (The JPS Torah Commentary ; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), xxii–xxviii.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

220

David Marcus

occurrence of a plural form A=N%L)H!4û in Ruth 1:2.20 When one looks at the context of these other references we are given a hint to the possible meaning of =N%L)H!4û in our verse. One of the references is 1 Sam 17:12 which introduces David and details his father’s genealogy : 87)l8=! A;û@û N=5,úB% 8:,û 8( =N%L)H!4û M1=4%.C5,û 79% 7)9! . Here, too, it is apparent that the meaning ‘Ephramite’ to describe David’s father is especially difficult since Jesse was a Judean from Bethlehem. Likewise, at Ruth 1:2 Elimelech and his family who come from Bethlehem in Judah are similarly described as ‘Ephramites:’ 87)l8=! A;û@û N=5,úB% A=N%L)H!4û, ‘Ephramites from Bethlehem in Judah.’ Clearly, in both these cases =N%L)H!4û must have a different meaning than that of coming from Ephraim. It seems that the medieval commentator Rashi (Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac, 1040 – 1105) was no doubt on the right track with his suggestion that =N%L)H!4û in all these passages means someone of high stature, an important person, so that is what Elkanah was an =N%L)H!4û, ‘a very important person.’ In this case, as in many others, the Masorah then indirectly prompts us to look at other contexts for a possible explanation of a difficult form.

V The last area where the Masorah is helpful is simply in the area of stimulating thought on various Hebrew words or phrases. For example, in 1 Sam 1:20, there is a Masoretic note on the phrase 9* BM!.1 N4û 4L)K!N,%9( , ‘she called his name,’ that it occurs ten times. This note brings to mind the interesting fact that in the Hebrew Bible mothers name their children more often than fathers do. These ten occurrences of mothers naming their children are ones that are written with the sign of the accusative N4û.21 The simanim, or catchwords, for these ten occurrences are given in various places.22 The list starts with Seth, then Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Joseph, Onen, Shelah, Samson, Samuel and finally Solomon. When one examines the names in this list one notices that there is a variant in connection with Solomon’s name (at 2 Sam 12:24) in the form of a ketiv and qere. The ketiv reads *9BM!1.N4û 4L)K!n%9( , ‘he (David) called his name,’ whereas the qere reads *9BM!1.N4û 4L)K!N,%9( , ‘she (Bathsheba) called his name:’ indicating two traditions about Solomon’s naming. As has been noted by most commentators, this statement about Hannah naming her child (1 Sam 1:20) brings to mind the problem of the etymology of Samuel’s name 9=N,%@!4%M!1 89) 8=! Bú =?,%, ‘because I asked him of the Lord’ which seems to be derived from the root @ea), and would be much more fitting for an etymology of 20 In the Aleppo Codex the catchwords for these references are given in the Masorah magna note to 1 Sam 17:12. 21 But there are nine other cases where *9BM!1.N4û 4L)K!N%, 9( occurs without the sign of the accusative N4û. 22 In the Cairo Codex at 1 Sam 1:20, and in the Leningrad Codex at Gen 30:13 and Judg 13:24.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

The Practical Use of the Masorah

221

Saul, not Samuel. This is especially so, since the root @ea) occurs seven times in this story (17 [twice], 20, 27 [twice], 28 [twice]). This etymology is again brought to the fore in another Masoretic note on the word @l4a), ‘lent,’ in 1 Sam 1:28 in the phrase 89) 8=@( @l4a) 4l8 8=) 8) LMû14# A=B%n) 8(.@?), , ‘as long as he lives he is lent to the Lord.’ The Masoretic note on this word reads: RN9?7 MDL5 AM @?9 R5 , ‘twice, and similarly every occurrence (of Saul) as a personal name as well.’ The note thus points out that there are only two occurrences of the form @l4a), a qal passive participle, here and in 2 Kgs 6:5 (in the story of Elisha recovering the submerged borrowed ax head). All other occurrences of this form, over three hundred and fifty, are of the personal name Saul. This Masoretic note on @l4a), alluding to the fact that the overwhelming majority of its occurrences, refer to Saul clearly raises the possibility, often suggested by many scholars,23 that our story indirectly is prefiguring Saul’s kingship.

VI In conclusion, I have endeavoured to show how the Masoretic notes can be useful as a supplementary tool in the interpretation of a standard Hebrew narrative. Paying attention to these notes can often pay dividends as on many occasions they lend themselves to the elucidation of a text by determining the ‘parameters’ of a text, by pointing out its ‘connectiveness’ to other texts, and occasionally (as with the =N%L)H!4û example) by contributing to its exegesis. In addition, many times the linguistic sensitivity of the Masoretes offers opportunities for discussion of significant Hebrew words or phrases to be found in the text. This is one way of attempting to integrate the specialized study of the Masorah into the wider area of biblical studies.

23 See, e. g., the commentaries of H. W. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1976), 26; P. K. McCarter Jr., I Samuel (AB 8; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), 63, 65.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Bibliography

Adair, Jr. J. R. “Old and New in Textual Criticism: Similarities, Differences, and Prospects for Cooperation.” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 1 (1996). Online: http:// rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v01/Adair1996.html. Alba-Cecilia, A. Biblia babilûnica: Ezequiel. Ediciûn cr†tica segffln manuscritos hebreos de puntuaciûn babilûnica. Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 27. Madrid: CSIC, 1980. – Biblia babilûnica: Isa†as. Ediciûn cr†tica segffln manuscritos hebreos de puntuaciûn babilûnica. Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 28. Madrid: CSIC, 1980. Albeck, C. Midrasˇ Beresˇit Rabbati ex libro R. Mosis Haddarsˇan collectus e codice Pragensi cum adnotationibus et introductione. Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1940. Albrektson, B. “Reflections on the Emergence of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible.” In J. A. Emerton, ed. Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977, 49 – 65. VTSup 29. Leiden: Brill, 1978. – Text, Translation, Theology : Selected Essays on the Hebrew Bible. SOTSM. Farnham/ Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2010. Allen, T. W. Homer : The Origins and Transmission. Oxford: Clarendon, 1924. Allony, N. “The Seventy Isolated Words by Rav Saadya Gaon” (Heb.). In S. Loewinger, J. Somogyi and A. Scheiber, eds. Goldzier Memorial Volume. 2 vols. 2:26 – 27. Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 1958 (Repr. N. Allony. Mehqerei Lashon ve-Sifrut, I: Pirqei Saadya Gaon. 52 – 53. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1986). Ap-Thomas, D. R. A Primer of Old Testament Text Criticism. 2d ed. FBBS 14. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966. Aptowitzer, V. Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur. 4 vols. Wien: Alfred Holder, 1908. Repr., New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1970. Avinon, S. “Syntactic, Logical, and Semantic Aspects of Masoretic Accentuation Signs” (Heb.). Leshonenu 53 (1989): 157 – 192. Bacher, W. “Die Anfänge der hebräischen Grammatik.” ZDMG 49 (1895): 1 – 66; 335 – 392. – Die exegetische der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur. Die bibel– und traditionsexegetische Terminologie der Amoräer. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905. Baillet, M., J. T. Milik and R. de Vaux. Les ‘petites grottes’ de Qumr–n. DJD III. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962. Barclay, J. M. G. Against Apion. Translation and Commentary. Vol. 10 of Flavius Josephus, Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Barnes, T. D. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

224

Bibliography

˘

Barr, J. “A New Look at Kethibh-Qere.” OTS 21 (1981): 19 – 27. – and D. T¦n¦. “Linguistic Literature, Hebrew.” In F. Skolnik, ed. Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2d ed. 13:29 – 61. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2007. Barth¦lemy, D. Êtudes d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament. OBO 21. Fribourg/Göttingen: Êditions Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. – Êz¦chiel, Daniel et les 12 ProphÀtes. Vol. 3 of Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. OBO 50:3. Fribourg/Göttingen: Êditions Universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. – et al. Isae, J¦r¦mie, Lamentations. Vol. 2 of Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. OBO 50:2. Fribourg/Göttingen: Êditions universitaires/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Barton, J. Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early Christianity. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Beit-Ari¦, M. “Transmission of Texts by Scribes and Copyists: Unconscious and Critical Interferences.” In P. S. Alexander and A. Samely, eds. Artefact and Text: the Re-Creation of Jewish Literature in Medieval Hebrew, 33 – 52. Manchester : John Rylands Library, 1994. Benot, P. et al. Les grottes de Murabba at. DJD II. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Bible-Hagiographa Codex Berlin, Or. Qu. 680. With an Introduction by I. Yeivin. Jerusalem: Makor, 1972. Biblia Hebraica Quinta: General Introduction and Megilloth/ cum apparatu critico novis curis elaborato participantibus. R. Althann [et al.]. /Ruth. J. de Waard. /Canticles. P. B. Dirksen./ Qoheleth. Y. A. P. Goldman. /Lamentations. R. Shäfer. /Esther. M. Saebø. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2002. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ediderunt K. Elliger et W. Rudolph, Textum Masoreticum curavit H. P. Rüger, Masoram elaboravit G. E. Weil. 5th ed. Rev. by A. Schenker. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997. Biblia Rabbinica: A Reprint of the 1525 Venice Edition. Edited by J. ben Hayyim Ibn Adoniya. Introduction by M. H. Goshen-Gottstein. Jerusalem: Makor, 1972. Bickerman, E. J. The Jews in the Greek Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. Birnbaum, G. The Language of the Mishnah in the Cairo Geniza: Phonology and Morphology (Heb.). Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2008. Blau, L. Masoretische Untersuchungen. Budapest: K. J. Trübner, 1891. Bombeck, S. Das althebräische Verbalsystem aus aramäischer Sicht: masoretischer Text, Targume und Peschitta. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23:591. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1997. Bonsirven, J. Ex¦gÀse rabbinique et ex¦gÀse paulinienne. Paris: Beauchesne, 1939. Boyarin, D. Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. Breuer, M. Biblical Accents in the Twenty-One [Prose] Books and in the Three [Poetical] Books (Heb.). Jerusalem: Mikhlala, 1982. Breuer, Y. The Hebrew in the Babylonian Talmud according to the Manuscripts of Tractate Pesahim (Heb.). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2002. Brichto, H. C. Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

225

Bibliography

˘

Brooke, A. E, N. McLean and H. J. Thackeray. I and II Kings. Vol. 2, part. 2 of The Old Testament in Greek. London: Cambridge University Press, 1930. Brown, F., S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, eds. The New Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1979. Ceresko, A. R. “The Chiastic Word Pattern in Hebrew.” CBQ 38 (1976): 303 – 311. Childs, B. S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia/London: Fortress Press/SCM Press, 1979. Chilton, B. D. The Isaiah Targum. Vol. 11 of The Aramaic Bible. Edinburgh: Clark, 1987. Churgin, P. Targum Jonathan to the Prophets. YOS 14. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1907 (=1927). Repr., New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1983. Cohen, M. B. “Masoretic Accents as a Biblical Commentary.” JANES 4:1 (1972): 2 – 11. Cohen, M., ed. Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘Haketer.’ A Revised and Augmented Scientific Edition of ‘Mikra’ot Gedolot.’ Based on the Aleppo Codex and early Medieval MSS: Samuel I & II. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1993. Cohen, S. J. D. “The Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis, and the End of Jewish Sectarianism.” HUCA 55 (1984): 27 – 54. Cross, F. M. “The History of the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert.” In F. M. Cross and S. Talmon, eds. Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, 177 – 195. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1975. – “The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts.” In F. M. Cross and S. Talmon, eds. Qumram and the History of the Biblical Text, 306 – 320. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. – “The Fixation of the Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible.” In id., From Epic to Canaan: History and Literature in Ancient Israel, 205 – 218. Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Dalman, G. Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch. Repr., Darmstadt, 1960. Davila, J. R. “Text-Type and Terminology : Genesis and Exodus as Text Case.” Revue de Qumran 16 (1993): 3 – 37. D†az-Esteban, F. Sefer Oklah we Oklah: colecciûn de listas de palabras destinadas a conservar la integridad del texto hebreo de la Biblia entre los jud†os de la Edad Media. Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 4. Madrid: CSIC, 1975. D†ez-Macho, A. Manuscritos hebreos y arameos de la Biblia: Contribuciûn al estudio de las diversas tradiciones del texto del Antiguo Testamento. Studia Ephemerides “Agustinianum” 5. Roma: Institutum patristicum Augustinianum, 1971. Dotan, A. The Diqduq¦ hatte amim of Aaron ben Moshe ben Asher, With a Critical Edition of the Original Text form New Manuscripts. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1967. – “Prolegomenon” to C. D. Ginsburg. The Massorah Compiled from Manuscripts Alphabetically and Lexically Arranged. 4 vols. Repr., New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1975. – “The Relative Chronology of Hebrew Vocalization and Accentuation.” PAAJR 48 (1981): 87 – 99. – “The Relative Chronology of the Accentuation System.” In M. Bar-Asher, ed. Language Studies 2 – 3 (Heb.), 355 – 365. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1987. – “From the Masorah to Grammar : the First Blossoms of Hebrew Grammatical Thought” (Heb.). Leshonenu 54 (1990): 155 – 168.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

226

Bibliography

– “About Pronunciation in Prayer and Tora Reading.” In I. Gluska and T. Kessar, eds. Shivtiel Book: Studies in the Hebrew Language and in the Linguistic Traditions of the Jewish Communities (Heb.), 68 – 76. Ramat Gan: Ha-aguda le-Tipuach Chevra veTarbut, 1992. – The Awakening of Word Lore: from the Masora to the Beginnings of Hebrew Lexicography (Heb.). Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2005. – “Masorah.” In F. Skolnik, ed. Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2d ed. 13:603 – 656. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2007. – “Masora’s Contribution to Biblical Studies. Revival of an Ancient Tool.” In A. Lemaire, ed. Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007, 57 – 69. Brill: Leiden, 2010. Ehrman, B. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Eissfeldt, O. The Old Testament, An Introduction, Including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and also the Works of Similar Type from Qumran: The History of the Formation of the Old Testament. Translated by P. R. Ackroyd. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. Eldar (Adler), I. The Hebrew Language Tradition in Medieval Ashkenaz (ca. 950 – 1350 C.E.) (Heb.). Vols. 1 – 2. Jerusalem: Publications of the Hebrew University Language Traditions Project, 1978 – 1979. – “The Art of Correct Reading of the Bible.” In A. Dotan, ed. Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies, 33 – 42. Masoretic Studies 7. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1992. – “The Antiquity of the Accentuation Signs According to the Karaite Abu-I-Faraj.” In M. Bar-Asher, ed. Rabbi Mordechai Breuer Festschrift: Collected Papers in Jewish Studies, 147 – 156. Jerusalem: Academon Press, 1992. – The Study of the Art of Correct Reading of the Bible as Reflected in the Medieval Treatise Hida¯yat al-Qa¯ri (= Guidance of the Reader) (Heb.). Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1994. Elman, Y. “The World of the ‘Sabboraim.’ Cultural Aspects of Post-Redactional Additions to the Bavli.” In J. L. Rubenstein, ed. Creation and Composition. The Contribution of the Bavli Redactors (Stammaim) to the Aggada, 383 – 415. TSAJ 114. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Epstein, A. “Ein von Titus nach Rom gebrachter Pentateuch-Codex und seine Varianten.” MGWJ 34:8 (1885): 337 – 351. Epstein, J. N. Introduction to Tannaitic Literature: Mishna, Tosephta and Halakhic Midrashim (Heb.). Edited by E. Z. Melamed. Jerusalem: Magnus, 1957. Erbse, H. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Scholia Vereta). Vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969. Fern‚ndez-Marcos, N. “5QDt y los tipos textuales b†blicos.” In G. Aranda et al., eds. Biblia Ex¦gesis y Cultura: Estudios en honor del Prof. D. Jos¦ Mar†a Casciaro, 119 – 125. Pamplona: EUNSA, 1994. – The Septuagint in Context. Leiden: Brill, 2001. – Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Judges. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012. Fern‚ndez-Tejero, E. “Masora y Ex¦gesis.” In N. Fern‚ndez-Marcos, J. Trebolle-Barrera and J. Fern‚ndez-Vallina, eds. Simposio b†blico espaÇol (Salamanca, 1982), 183 – 191. Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 1984.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

227

Bibliography

Fern‚ndez-Tejero, E. and Ma. T. Ortega-Monasterio. “Las masoras de A, C y L en el libro de Nahum.” Sefarad 41 (1981): 1 – 43. – “Las masoras de A, C y L en el libro de Joel.” In E. Fern‚ndez-Tejero, ed. Estudios Masor¦ticos (V Congreso de la IOMS). Dedicados a Harry M. Orlinsky, 205 – 242. Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 33. Madrid: CSIC, 1983. Fine, S. ed. Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World. New York: Oxford University Press/Yeshiva University Museum, 1996. Fischer, A. A. Der Text des Alten Testaments. Neubearbeitung der Einleitung in die Biblia Hebraica von Ernst Würthwein. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2009. Flint, P. Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms. STDJ 17. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Fraser, P. M. Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Frensdorff, S. Das Buch Ochlah W’ochlah. Hannover: Hahn, 1864. Repr., New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1972. – Die Massora Magna I: Massoretisches Wörterbuch oder die Massora in alphabetischer Ordnung. Hannover/Leipzig: Verlagsbuchhandlung von Cohen & Risch, 1876. Repr., New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1968. Friedman, S. and L. Moscovitz. Primary Textual Witnesses to Tannaitic Literature Bar Ilan data-base. Bar Ilan University. Online: http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/tannaim/. Fuller, R. C. Alexander Geddes 1737 – 1802. A Pioneer of Biblical Criticism. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1984. Gafni, I. “The Modern Study of Rabbinics and Historical Questions: the Tale of the Text” In R. Bieringer et al., eds. The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, 43 – 61. JSJSup 136. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Garc†a-Mart†nez, F. “Rethinking the Bible. Sixty years of Dead Sea Scrolls Research and Beyond.” In M. Popovic, ed. Authoritative Scriptures in Ancient Judaism, 19 – 36. JSJSup 141. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Gelston, A. Biblia hebraica Quinta: The Twelve Minor Prophets. Stuttgartt: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010. Ginsburg, C. D. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897. Repr., New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1966. – The Massorah Compiled from Manuscripts. 4 vols. Repr., New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1975. Goldberg, A. “The Rabbinic View of Scripture.” In P. R. Davies and R. White, eds. ATribute to Geza Vermes, 153 – 166. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Goodblatt, D. “The Title Nasi and the Ideological Background of the Second Revolt.” In A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport, eds. The Bar Kokhva Revolt: A New Approach, 113 – 132. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1984. Gooding, D. W. “An Appeal for a Stricter Terminology in the Textual Criticism of the Old Testament.” JSS 21 (1976): 15 – 25. Goodman, M. “The Nature of Jewish Studies.” In id., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, 1 – 13. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Gordis, R. The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere. Philadelphia, 1937. Repr. Augmented Edition with a Prolegomenon, New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1971. Gordon, R. B. “Terra Sancta and the Territorial Doctrine of the Targum to the Prophets.” In

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

228

Bibliography

˘

J. A. Emerton and S. Reif, eds. Interpreting the Hebrew Bible. Essays in honour of E. I. J. Rosenthal, 119 – 131. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. The Book of Isaiah. Sample Edition with Introduction. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1965. – “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their History and Their Place in the HUBP Edition.” Bib 48 (1967): 243 – 290. – “The Development of the Hebrew Text of the Bible: Theories and Practice of Textual Criticism.” VT 42:2 (1992): 204 – 213. – ed. The Book of Isaiah: The Hebrew University Bible. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1995. – and S. Talmon, eds. The Book of Ezekiel: The Hebrew University Bible. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2004. Gottlieb, H. and E. Hammershaimb. The Books of Kings. Part. 2, Fasc. 4 of The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Green, W. S. “‘What’s in a Name’ – The Problematic of Rabbinic ‘Biography.’” Approaches to Ancient Judaism 1 (1978): 77 – 96. Greenberg, M. “The Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew Bible Reviewed in the Light of the Biblical Materials from the Judean Desert.” JAOS 76 (1956): 157 – 167. – “The Use of the Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew Text: A Sampling from Ezechiel ii 1 – iii 11.” VTSup 29 (1978): 131 – 148. Harkavy, A. A. 9N9LHE59 @4LM= N97@9N5 A=LK;B9 N9L9KB .A=DM= A6 A=M7;. Ha’asif, 1885. Harris, I. “The Rise and Development of the Massorah. I.” JQR 1 (1898 – 1899): 128 – 142. JQR 2: 223 – 257. Harweg, R. “Texte als Einheiten der Parole und der Langue.” In id. Studien zur Textlinguistik. Aufsätze, 61 – 81. Aachen: Shaker, 2001. Hayward, R. “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration.” In G. Vermes and J. Neusner, eds. Essays in Honour of Yigael Yadin, JJS 33 (1982): 429 – 443. – The Targum of Jeremiah. The Aramaic Bible 12. Edinburgh: Clark, 1987. Hertzberg, H. W. I & II Samuel. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press, 1976. Hezser, C. The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine. TSAJ 66. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Himmelfarb, L. The Paseq in the Hebrew Bible: Occurrences in Medieval Manuscripts, Characteristics and Relation to the Accentuation System (Heb.). Ph. D. diss., Bar Ilan University, 1990. – “The Commentary by Nechama Leibowitz on the Bible and Its Relation to Ta amei Hamiqra.” In M. Arend, G. Cohen and R. Ben-Meir, eds. Pirkei Nechama – Prof. Nechama Leibowitz Memorial Volume (Heb.), 53 – 69. Jerusalem: Eliner Press, 2001. – “Structural Characteristics of Verses without Etnach in the 21 Prose Books of the Bible.” In R. Kasher and M. Zipor, eds. Studies in Bible and Exegesis VI, Y.O. Komlosh – in Memoriam (Heb.), 47 – 69. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002. – “The Identity of the First Masoretes.” Sefarad 67 (2007): 37 – 50. – “The Status of Biblical Accentuation in the Da at Mikra Commentary on the Torah” (Heb.). Beit Mikra 52:1 (2007): 103 – 116. Igrot Shadal. Edited by S. A. Graber. Krakow, 1893. Jacobs, L. “Torah, Reading of.” In F. Skolnik, ed. Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2d ed. 20:46 – 49. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2007. ˘

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

229

Bibliography

Jeremias, J. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period. London: SCM Press, 1976. Jong-Hoon, Kim. Die hebräischen und griechischen Textformen der Samuel– und Königsbücher. Studien zur Textgeschichte ausgehend von 2Sam 15,1 – 19,9. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. Joüon, P. and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. Sub. Bi. 14:1. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996. Kahana, M. I. The Genizah Fragments of the Halakhic Midrashim. Part I. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2005. Kahle, P. Der masoretische Text des Alten Testaments, nach der Überlieferung der babylonischen Juden. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1902. Repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1966. – Masoreten des Ostens: die ältesten punktierten Handschriften des Alten Testaments un der Targume. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1913. Repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1984. – “Der Konsonantentext.” In H. Bauer and P. Leander. Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testaments, 71 – 80. Halle: Niemeyer, 1922. Repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1965. Kelley, P. H., D. S. Mynatt and T. G. Crawford. The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Introduction and Annotated Glossary. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998. Kennicott, B. Vetus Testamentum hebraicum cum variis lectionibus. Vols. 1 – 2. Oxford, 1776 – 1780. Klein, M. L. The Masorah to Targum Onqelos. Binghampton, NY: Global Publications/ Binghampton University, 2000. Koehler, L. and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament (HALAT). Studienausgabe. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Kogut, S. Correlations between Biblical Accentuation and Traditional Jewish Exegesis: Linguistic and Contextual Studies (Heb.). Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1994. Komlosh, Y. “98=BL= A96LN.” Bar-Ilan 7 – 8 (1969): 38 – 48. – A96LN8 L945 4LKB8. Dvir : Tel Aviv, 1973. Korpel, M. C. A., J. C. De Moor, and F. Sepmeijer. “Consistency with Regard to Tenses: Targum and Peshitta in Two Samples from Deutero-Isaiah.” In Actes du Cinquieme Colloque International Bible et Informatique: Traduction et transmission, Aix-enProvence, 1 – 4 September 1997, 195 – 220. TLQ 65. Paris: Honore Champion, 1998. Kraemer, D. “On the Reliability of Attributions in the Babylonian Talmud.” HUCA 60 (1989): 175 – 190. Kreuzer, S. “Von der Vielfalt zur Einheitlichkeit: Wie kam es zur Vorherrschaft des masoretischen Textes?” In A. Vonach and G. Fischer, eds. Horizonte biblischer Texte: Festschrift für Josef M. Oesch zum 60. Geburtstag, 117 – 129. OBO 196. Fribourg: Academic Press, 2003. Kuty, R. J. “Determination in Targum Jonathan to Samuel.” Aramaic Studies 3 (2005): 187 – 201. – Studies in the Syntax of Targum Jonathan to Samuel. ANES SS 30. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Lange, A. “‘Nobody dared to add to them, to take from them, or to make changes’ (Josephus, Ag.Ap. 1.42): The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In A. Hilhorst, E. Puech and E. Tigchelaar, eds. Flores Florentino.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

230

Bibliography

˘

Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino Garc†a Mart†nez, 105 – 126. JSJSup 122. Leiden: Brill, 2007. – “‘They Confirmed the Reading’ (y. Ta‘an. 4:68a): The Textual Standardization of Jewish Scriptures in the Second Temple Period.” In A. Lange, M. Weigold and J. Zsengell¦r, eds. From Qumran to Aleppo: A Discussion with Emanuel Tov about the Textual History of Jewish Scriptures in Honor of his 65th Birthday, 29 – 80. FRLANT 230. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009. Lapin, H. “The Origins and Development of the Rabbinic Movement in the Land of Israel.” In The Late Roman-rabbinic Period. Vol. 4 of S. T. Katz, ed. Cambridge History of Judaism, 206 – 229. New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Lauterbach, J. Z. “The Three Books Found in the Temple at Jerusalem.” JQR 8 (1917 – 1918): 385 – 423. Leiman, S. Z. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence. TCAAS 47. Hamden, CT: Archon, 1976. Leonora, S. “Accentuation: A Tool for Interpreting the Text of the Hebrew Bible.” JBQ 33:3 (2005): 174 – 183. Levine, L. I. The Ancient Synagogue. The First Thousand Years. New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2000. Levita, E. Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita: Being An Exposition Of The Massoretic Notes On The Hebrew Bible, With an English Translation and Critical Notes by C. D. Ginsburg. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1968. Lewis, J. P. “What Do We Mean by Jabneh?” JBR 32 (1964): 125 – 132. Lieberman, S. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. New York: Philipp Feldheim, 1950. – Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E. – IV Century C.E.. 2d ed. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962. – Tosefta Mo’ed. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962. Loewinger, D. “8798= L57BB 98=FM= N9@=65 @4 9E;= .4B9LB E9L=9E NED? N=55 :9D6 8=8M 8L9N LHE L=4B =5L @M 9NL9N @49.” Beit Mikra 42 (1970): 237 – 263. Luzzatto, S. D. Perushe Shedal al Sefer Yesha yah (Heb.). Edited by P. Shlesinger and M. Hobab. Padua 1845 – 1897. Repr., Tel Aviv : Dvir, 1990. Maori, Y. “The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Rabbinic Writings in the Light of the Qumran Evidence.” In D. Dimant and U. Rappaport, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls Forty Years of Research, 283 – 289. Leiden/Jerusalem: Brill/Magnes Press/Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1992. Marcus, D. “Alternate Chapter Divisions in the Light of the Masoretic Sections.” HS 44 (2003): 119 – 128. – Biblia hebraica Quinta: Ezra and Nehemiah. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. – The Masora Parva Catchwords in the Leningrad Codex. E-Monograph in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 12 (2007). Online: http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol12/ Marcus2007.pdf. Margolis, M. L. “Ai or the City.” JQR NS 7 (1917): 491 – 497. Margolioth, M. ed. Midrash Wayyiqra Rabbah. 5 vols. Jerusalem: American Academy of Jewish Research, 1956. Mart†n-Contreras, E. “Terminolog†a masor¦tica en la ex¦gesis de G¦nesis Rabb– (secciones ‘Bere’sˇıt’ y ‘Noah’).” Sefarad 59 (1999): 343 – 352. ˙ ˘

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

231

Bibliography

– La interpretaciûn de la Creaciûn. T¦cnicas exeg¦ticas en el midr‚s “G¦nesis Rabbah.” Biblioteca Midr‚sica 24. Estella, Navarra: Verbo Divino, 2002. – “Comments on Textual Details: Relationship between Masorah and Midrash.” JJS 54 (2003): 62 – 70. – “Noticias masor¦ticas en el midr‚s Lamentaciones Rabb–.” Sefarad 62 (2002): 125 – 141. – “Una lista masor¦tica in¦dita con comentarios exeg¦ticos.” MEAH 52 (2003): 61 – 75. – “Noticias masor¦ticas en los midrasˇ„m hal‚kicos m‚s antiguos y su comparaciûn con los midrasˇ„m exeg¦ticos.” Sefarad 63:1 (2003): 119 – 139. – “El principio hermen¦utico ’Þn ket„b ka’n ’el·la’ en la Mekilta de Rabbi Yisˇmael.” ¯ Sefarad 65:1 (2005), 85 – 102. – “Grammatik. III. Judaistisch.” In O. Wishchmeyer et al., eds. Lexikon der Bibelhermeneutik, 236 – 237. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. – “Masoretic and Rabbinic Lights on the Word =5%8), Ruth 3:15: 58= or 495?” VT 59 (2009): 257 – 265. – and G. Seijas de los R†os-Zarzosa. Masora: La transmisiûn de la tradiciûn de la Biblia Hebrea. Estella, Navarra: Verbo Divino, 2010. – “Text Preserving Observations in the midrash Ruth Rabbah.” JJS 62:2 (2011): 311 – 323. Mart†nez-Borobio, E. I – II Samuel. Vol. 2 of Targum Jonat‚n de los Profetas Primeros en tradiciûn babilûnica. Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 38. Madrid: Instituto de Filolog†a del CSIC, 1987. – Josu¦-Jueces. Vol. 1 of Targum Jonat‚n de los Profetas Primeros en tradiciûn babilûnica. Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 46. Madrid: Instituto de Filolog†a del CSIC, 1989. – I – II Reyes. Vol. 3 of Targum Jonat‚n de los Profetas Primeros en tradiciûn babilûnica. Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 63. Madrid: Instituto de Filolog†a del CSIC, 1998. Mason, S. “Josephus on Canon and Scriptures.” In M. Saebø, ed. Part. 1: Antiquity. Vol. 1 of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. 217 – 235. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. McCarter Jr., P. K. I Samuel. AB 8. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980. McCarthy, C. The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. – “A Comparative Study of the Masorah Magna and Parva of the Book of Deuteronomy as Attested in the Leningrad and Madrid M1 Manuscripts.” In Y. A. P. Goldman, A. van der Kooij and R. D. Weis, eds. Sofer Mahir: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta, 177 – 191. Leiden: Brill, 2006. – Biblia hebraica Quinta: Deuteronomy. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007. Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition on the Basis of the MSS and Early Editions with an English Translation, Introduction and Notes by S. Horovitz and Completed by I. Rabin. 3 vols. Philadelphia, 1933 – 1935. Repr., Jerusalem: Wahrman Books, 1970. Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael. Translated by J. Neusner. The Components of the Rabbinic Documents. From the Whole to the Parts VIII: Mekhilta Attributed to Rabbi Ismael. 3 vols. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997. Midrash Bereshit Rabbah. Codex Vatican 60 (Ms. Vat. Ebr. 60). Page index by A. F. Sherry. Jerusalem: Makor, 1972.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

232

Bibliography

Midrash Bereshit Rabbah MS Vat Ebr. 30. With an Introduction and Index by M. Sokoloff. Jerusalem: Makor, 1970. Midrash Bereshit Rabba. Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary. Edited by J. Theodor. and C. Albeck. Second Printing with Additional Correction by C. Albeck. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965. Repr., Jerusalem: Shalem, 1996. Midrash Rabbah: Genesis. Translated by H. Freedman. Compact edition. London: Soncino, 1977 (= 1983). Midrash Rabbah: Leviticus. Translated by J. Israelstam and J. J. Slotki (Chapters 20 – 37). London: Soncino, 1939. Midrasch Tehillim. S. Buber, ed. Wilna, 1892. Repr., Hildesheim, 1966. Mikra’ot Gedolot “Haketer :” A Revised and Augmented Scientific Edition of “Mikra’ot Gedolot” Based on the Aleppo Codex and Early Medieval MSS on CD-Rom. Edited by M. Cohen. Bar-Ilan University Press. Milgrom, J. Numbers: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. Milikowsky, C. “The Status Quaestionis of Research in Rabbinic Literature.” JJS 39:2 (1988): 201 – 211. – and M. Schlüter’s online synoptic edition of Wayyiqra’ Rabbah, http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/ midrash/VR (accessed 24/08/10). Morag, S. “Some Aspects of the Methodology and Terminology of the Early Massoretes” (Heb.). Leshonenu 38 (1974): 49 – 77. Muilenburg, J. “Form Criticism and Beyond.” JBL 78 (1969): 1 – 18. Mulder, J. M. “The Use of the Peshitta in Textual Criticism.” In N. Fern‚ndez-Marcos, ed. La Septuaginta en la Investigaciûn Contempor‚nea. V Congreso de la IOSCS, 37 – 53. Madrid: CSIC, 1985. – “The Transmission of the Biblical Text.” In id., ed. Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, 87 – 135. Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/ Fortress Press, 1988. Mynatt, D. S. and T. G. Crawford. “Integrating the Masorah into the Classroom: a Tribute to Page Kelley.” PRSt 28 (2001): 373 – 383. Nagy, G. Homer’s Text and Language. Traditions. Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2004. Navarro-Peiro, A. and F. P¦rez-Castro. Biblia babilûnica: Profetas Menores. Ediciûn cr†tica segffln manuscritos hebreos de puntuaciûn babilûnica. Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 16. Madrid: CSIC, 1977. Neubauer, A. “Der Pentateuch der sogenannten Severus-Synagoge.” MGWJ 36 (1887): 508 – 509. Neusner, J. “Evaluating the Attributions of Sayings to Named Sages in Rabbinic Literature.” JSJ 26:1 (1995): 93 – 111. – The Components of the Rabbinic Documents. From the Whole to the Parts VIII: Mekhilta Attributed to Rabbi Ismael. 3 Vols. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1997. Ofer, Y. “The Masoretic Divisions (Sedarim) in the Books of the Prophets and Hagiographa” (Heb.). Tarbiz 58 (1988 – 1989): 156 – 163. – The Babylonian Masora of the Pentateuch: Its Principle and Methods (Heb.). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001. – Le-zikhro shel Yisrael Yeivin (Heb.). Jerusalem, 2012.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

233

Bibliography

˘

Ognibeni, B. La seconda parte del Sefer Oklah we Oklah: edizione del Ms. Halle, Universitätsbibliothek. Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 57. Madrid/Fribourg: CSIC/ Universit¦ De Fribourg, 1995. Olyan, S. “4Q382. 4Qpap paraKings et al. (Pls. XXXVIII – XLI).” In H. Attridge, T. Elgvin, J. Milik, S. Olyan and S. White, in consultation with J. VanderKam, eds. Qumran Cave 4, VII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, 363 – 416. DJD XIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Orlinsky, H. M. “Prolegomenon. The Masoretic Text: A Critical Evaluation.” In C. D. Ginsburg. Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible, i–xlv. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897. Repr., New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1966. Ortega-Monasterio, Ma. T. “Some Masoretic Notes of Mss. L and Or 4445 Compared with the Spanish Tradition.” Sefarad 57 (1997): 127 – 133. P¦rez-Castro, F., ed. Samuel. Vol. 2 of El cûdice de Profetas de El Cairo. Ediciûn de su texto y masoras dirigida por — y realizada por : C. MuÇoz-Abad, E. Fern‚ndez-Tejero, Ma. T. Ortega-Monasterio, Ma. J. de Azc‚rraga-Servert y E. Carrero-Rodr†guez. Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros.” Madrid: Instituto “Arias Montano” del CSIC, 1983. P¦rez-Fern‚ndez, M. An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew. Translated by J. Elwolde. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill, 1997. Perlman, M. Hug Le-Ta amei Ha-Miqra. Tel Aviv, 1973 – 1975. – The Introduction to the Book of Joshua according to the Biblical Accentuation (Heb.). Tel Aviv : Zimrat, 1984. Pfeiffer, R. History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginning to the End of the Hellenistic Age. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Pinsker, S. Einleitung in das babylonisch-hebräische Punktationssystem. Vienna: Phillip Bendiner, 1863. Piquer, A., P. Torijano and J. Trebolle. “Septuagint Versions, Greek Recensions and Hebrew Editions. The Text-Critical Evaluation of the Old Latin, Armenian and Georgian Versions in III – IV Regnorum.” In H. Ausloos, J. Cook, F. Garc†a-Mart†nez, B. Lemmelijn and M. Vervenne, eds. Translating a Translation. The Septuagint and its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism, 251 – 281. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. Pöhlmann, E. Altertum. Vol. 1 of Einführung in die Überlieferungsgeschichte und in die Textkritik der antiken Literatur. 3d ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. Rabin, C. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of the O.T. Text.” JTS n.s. 6 (1955): 174 – 182. – S. Talmon and E. Tov, eds. The Book of Jeremiah: The Hebrew University Bible. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1997. Rahlfs, A. Lucians Rezension der Königsbücher. Septuaginta-Studien 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911. Revell, J. “The interpretative value of the Massoretic punctuation.” In Part 2: The Middle Age. Vol. 1 of M. Saebø, ed. Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation, 64 – 73. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. – “Masoretic Text.” D. N. Freedman, editor-in-chief… [et al.]. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 4. New York: Yale University Press, 1992. Ribera-Florit, J. Biblia Babilûnica: Profetas Posteriores (Targum). Salamanca: Varona, 1977.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

234

Bibliography

– Targum Jonat‚n de los Profetas Posteriores en tradiciûn babilûnica: Isa†as. Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 43. Madrid: Instituto de Filolog†a del CSIC, 1987. – Targum Jonat‚n de los Profetas Posteriores en tradiciûn babilûnica: Jerem†as. Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 52. Madrid: Instituto de Filolog†a del CSIC, 1992). – Targum Jonat‚n de los Profetas Posteriores en tradiciûn babilûnica: Ezequiel. Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” 62. Madrid: Instituto de Filolog†a del CSIC, 1997. Roberts, B. J. The Old Testament Text and Versions: The Hebrew Text in Transmission and the History of the Ancient Versions. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1951. Rof¦, A. “Midrashic Traits in 4Q51 (so-called 4QSam-a).” In P. Hugo and A. Schenker. eds. Archaeology of the Books of Samuel. The Entangling of the Textual and Literary History, 75 – 88. VTSup 132. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Rosenfeldt, S. Sefer Mishpachat Soferim (Heb.). Vilna, 1883. Rossi, J. B. Variae lectiones Veteris Testamenti. Vols. 1 – 4. Parma, 1784 – 1788. Rubinstein, A. “Singularities in the Massorah of the Leningrad Codex (B19a).” JJS 12 (1961): 123 – 131. – “The Problem of Errors in the Massorah Parva of Codex B19a.” Sefarad 25 (1965): 16 – 26. Rubensstein, J. L. The Culture of the Babylon Talmud. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003. Runesson, A., D. D. Binder and B. Olsson. The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 C.E. A Source Book. AJEC 72. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Saebø M., ed. From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (until 1300). Part 1: Antiquity. Vol. 1 of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament. The History of Its Interpretation. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. S‚enz-Badillos, A. A History of the Hebrew Language. Translated by J. Elwolde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Samely, A. “Between Scripture and its Rewording: Towards a Classification of Rabbinic Exegesis.” JJS 42 (1991): 39 – 67. – Rabbinic Interpretation of Scripture in the Mishnah. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. – Forms of Rabbinic Literature and Thought. An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. – “The Targums within a New Description of Jewish Text Structures in Antiquity.” Aramaic Studies 9 (2011): 5 – 38. – “The Bible as Talked About: Reflections on the Usage and Conceptual Implications of the Term ‘Miqra’ in Early Rabbinic Literature.” In K. Finsterbusch and A. Lange, eds. What is Bible, 193 – 218. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. Sanders, J. A. “Text and Canon: Concepts and Method.” JBL 98 (1979): 5 – 29. Sarna, N. M. “Bible.” In C. Roth and G. Wigode, eds. Encyclopadia Judaica. 4:814 – 836. Jerusalem/New York: Keter/Macmillan, 1971. Schäfer, P. “Research Into Rabbinic Literature: An Attempt to Define the Status Quaestionis.” JJS 37:2 (1986): 139 – 152. – “Once Again the Status Quaestionis of Research in Rabbinic Literature: An Answer to Chaim Milikowsky.” JJS 40:1 (1989): 89 – 94. Schenker, A. “Est-ce que le livre de J¦r¦mie fut publi¦ dans une ¦dition refondue au 2e siÀcle? La multiplicit¦ textuelle peut-elle coexister avec l’¦dition unique d’un livre

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

235

Bibliography

biblique?” In I. Himbaza and A. Schenker, eds. Un carrefour dans l’histoire de la Bible. Du texte — la th¦ologie au IIe siÀcle avant J.–C., 58 – 74. OBO 233. Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Schnabel, E. J. Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul. WUNT 216. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Schorch, S.“The Pre-eminence of the Hebrew Language and the Emerging Concept of the ‘Ideal Text’ in Late Second Temple Judaism.” In G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengell¦r, eds. Studies in the Book of Ben Sira, 43 – 54. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Schürer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 135). 3 vols. Rev. and ed. G. Vermes, F. Millar and M. Black. Edinburgh: Clark, 1979. Seeligmann, S. L. “Studies in the History of the Biblical Text.” Textus 20 (2000): 1 – 30. Segal, M. H. “The Promulgation of the Authoritative Text of the Hebrew Bible.” JBL 72:1 (1953): 35 – 47. Seven Minor Treatises. Sefer Torah; Mezuzah; Tefillin; Zizit; ’Abadim; Kutim; Gerim. And Treatise Soferim II. Edited from Manuscripts with an Introduction, Notes, Variants and Translation by Michael Higger. New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1930. Siegel, J. P. The Severus Scroll and 1QIsa. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Simon-Shoshan, M. “The Task of the Translators. The Rabbis, the Septuagint, and the Cultural Politics of Translation.” Prooftexts 27 (2007): 1 – 39. Skehan, P. W. “The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism.” VTSup 4 (1957): 148 – 160. Smelik, W. F. “Orality, the Targums, and Manuscript Reproduction.” In A. den Hollander, U. Schmidt and W. F. Smelik, eds. Paratext and Megatext in Jewish and Christian Traditions, 49 – 81. JCP. Brill: Leiden, 2003. Smith, J. P. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1903. Sokoloff, M. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat Gan/Baltimore-London: Bar-Ilan University Press/The John Hopkins University Press, 2002. Spanier, A. Die massoretischen Akzente: eine Darlegung ihres Systems nebst Beiträgen zum Verständnis ihrer Entwicklung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1927. Sperber, A. The Bible in Aramaic. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1959 – 1973. Shoshany, R. “Methodological Problems in the Study of the Babylonian Accentuation System.” In A. Dotan, ed. Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies (Heb.), 69*–76*. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994. – Babylonian Accentuation, Stages of Development, and Relationship to the Tiberian System. Ph. D. diss. Tel-Aviv, 2003. – “The Original Purpose of Biblical Accentuation.” In M. Bar-Asher and C. E. Cohen, eds. Mas’at Aharon: Linguistic Studies Presented to Aron Dotan (Heb.), 469 – 486. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 2009. Stemberger, G. “Dating Rabbinic Traditions.” In R. Bieringer et al., eds. The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, 79 – 96. JSJSup 136. Leiden: Brill, 2009. – Das klassische Judentum. Kultur und Geschichte der rabbinischen Zeit. München: C. H. Beck, 2009. – “Hebräisch als ideale Sprache – Konsequenzen für die Hermeneutik.” In Judaica Mi-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

236

Bibliography

nora I: Biblische Traditionen im rabbinischen Judentum, 88 – 102. TSAJ 133. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. – Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch. 9th ed. München: C.H. Beck, 2011. Stern, S. “Attribution and Authorship in the Babylonian Talmud.” JJS (1994): 28 – 51. – “The Concept of Authorship in the Babylonian Talmud.” JJS (1995): 183 – 195. Strack, H. L., ed. The Hebrew Bible-Latter Prophets: the Babylonian Codex of Petrograd. Edited with Preface and Critical Annotations. 1876. Repr., New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1971. Tal, A. A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic. HdO. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Talmon, S. “The Old Testament Text.” In R. P. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, eds. The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols. Vol. 1. 159 – 199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Repr., in F. Cross and S. Talmon, eds. Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, 1 – 41. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1975. – “The Three Scrolls of the Law That Were Found in the Temple Court.” Textus 2 (1962): 14 – 27. – “The Textual Study of the Bible – A New Outlook.” In F. M. Cross and S. Talmon, eds. Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, 321 – 400. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1975. – “Introduction.” In vol. 1 of id. Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible. Collected Studies, 16 – 17. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Tarski, A. “The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4 (1944): 341 – 376. Ta-Shma, M. “The ‘Open’ Book in Medieval Hebrew Literature: the Problem of Authorized Editions.” In P. S. Alexander and A. Samely, eds. Artefact and Text: the Re-Creation of Jewish Literature in Medieval Hebrew, 17 – 42. Manchester : John Rylands Library, 1994. Tov, E. “A Modern Textual Outlook Based on the Qumram Scrolls.” HUCA 53 (1982): 11 – 27. – “The Textual Base of the Corrections in the Biblical Texts Found at Qumran.” In D. Dimant and U. Rappaport, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, 299 – 314. Leiden/New York/Cologne/Jerusalem: Brill/Magnes Press/Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1992. – Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. – “Scriptures: Texts.” In L. H. Schiffman and J. C. VanderKam, eds. in chief Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 2 vols. 2:832 – 836. Oxford: University Press, 2000. – Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2d ed. rev. Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress Press/ Royal Van Gorcum, 2001. – “The Nature of the Large-Scale Differences between the LXX and MT S T V, Compared with Similar Evidence in Other Sources.” In A. Schenker, ed. The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: The Relationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of the Septuagint Reconsidered, 121 – 144. Atlanta/Leiden: Society of Biblical Literature/Brill, 2003. – Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. STDJ 54. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2004. – “The Text of the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek Bible Used in the Ancient Synagogues.” In id. Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran. Collected Essays, 171 – 188. TSAJ 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

237

Bibliography

– “The Text of Isaiah at Qumran.” In Collected Papers 2008, www.emanueltov.info, chp 5, 10 – 11. – “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Textual History of the Masoretic Text.” In N. D‚vid, A. Lange, K. De Troyer and S. Tzoref, eds. The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 41 – 53. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. – Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3d ed., rev. and expanded. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. Trebolle-Barrera, J. “Qumran Evidence for a Biblical Standard Text and for Non-Standard and Parabiblical Texts.” In T. H. Lim et al., eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, 89 – 106. London/New York: T & T, 2000. – “‘Israelitizaciûn’ del texto proto-masor¦tico en los libros histûricos (Josu¦-Reyes).” MEAH. Secciûn de hebreo 53 (2004): 441 – 472. Ulrich, E. C. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids/Cambridge/ Leiden: Eerdmans/Brill, 1999. – “The Qumran Biblical Scrolls: the Scriptures of Late Second Temple Judaism.” In T. H. Lim et al., eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical Context, 67 – 87. London/New York: T & T, 2000. – “Two Perspectives on Two Pentateuchal Manuscripts from Masada.” In S. M. Paul et al., eds. Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, 453 – 464. VTSup 94. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003. – “Our Sharper Focus on the Bible and Theology Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls.” CBQ 66 (2004): 3 – 4. – “Methodological Reflections on Determining Scriptural Status in First Century Judaism.” In M. L. Grossman, ed. Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls: An Assessment of Old and New Approaches and Methods, 145 – 161. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010. – The Biblical Qumran Scrolls. VTSup 134. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010. – “Clearer Insight into the Development of the Bible – A Gift of the Scrolls.” In A. D. Roitman, L. H. Schiffman and S. Tzoref, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6 – 8, 2008), 119 – 137. STDJ 93. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Urman, D. and P. V. M. Flesher, eds. Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1995/1998. Van der Kooij, A. Die alten Textzeugen des Jesajabuches. Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments. OBO 35. Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. – “Ancient Emendations in MT.” In D. Böhler and I. Himbaza, P. Hugo, eds. L’Ecrit et l’Esprit. Etudes d’histoire du texte et de th¦ologie biblique en hommage — Adrian Schenker, 152 – 159. OBO 214. Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. – “The Public Reading of Scriptures at Feasts.” In C. Tuckett, ed. Feasts and Festivals, 27 – 44. CBET 53. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. – “Josephus, Onkelos and Jonathan. On the Agreements between Josephus’ Works and Targumic Sources.” In G. Khan and D. Lipton, eds. Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon, 253 – 267. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Van der Woude, A. S. “Pluriformity and Uniformity : Reflections on the Transmission of

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

238

Bibliography

˘

the Text of the Old Testament.” In J. N. Brenner and F. Garc†a-Mart†nez, eds. Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A. S. van der Woude, 151 – 169. CBET 5. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992. Van Seters, J. The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Van Staalduine-Sulman, E. The Targum of Samuel. Vol. 1 of Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Vaux, R. de. “Les grottes de Murabba at et leurs documents. Rapport pr¦liminaire.” RB 60 (1953): 245 – 267. Veltri, G. Eine Tora für den Konig Talmai. Untersuchungen zum Übersetzungsverständnis in der jüdisch-hellenistischen und rabbinischen Literatur. TSAJ 41. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. – “From the best Text to the Pragmatic Edition: On Editing Rabbinic Texts.” In R. Bieringer et al., eds. The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature, 63 – 78. JSJSup 136. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Visotzky, B. L. Golden Bells and Pomegranates. Studies in Midrash Leviticus Rabbah. TSAJ 94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Waard, J. de. Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Proverbs. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2008. Wacholder, B. Z. “The Date of the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael.” HUCA 39 (1968): 117 – 144. Weil, G. E. Massorah Gedolah Iuxta codicem Leningradensem B19a. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971. – “Nouveaux fragments in¦dits de la Massorah Magna babylonienne (II).” Textus 6 (1986): 77 – 78. Wevers, J. W. “A Study in the Hebrew Variants in the Books of Kings.” ZAW 20 (1945 – 1948): 43 – 76. White Crawford, S. Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008. Wickes, W. Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1881, 1887. Repr., New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1970. Wolf, F. A. Prolegomena to Homer, 1795. Translation with Introduction and Notes by A. Grafton, G. W. Most and J. E. G. Zetzel. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. Würthwein, E. The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica. 2d ed. Translated by E. F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Yeivin, I., “Babylonian Manuscript of the Hagiographa. Introduction.” In Bible-Hagiographa Codex Berlin, Or. Qu. 680 (Heb.). Jerusalem: Makor, 1972. – ed. Geniza Bible Fragments with Babylonian Massorah and Vocalization. 6 vols. Jerusalem: Makor, 1973. – Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Translated by E. J. Revell. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature/Scholars Press, 1980. – “From the Teachings of the Massoretes” (Heb.). Textus 9 (1981): 1 – 27. – The Hebrew Language Tradition as Reflected in the Babylonian Vocalization (Heb.). 2 vols. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1985. – The Biblical Masorah (Heb.). Studies in Language 3. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2003. Young, I. “The Stabilization of the Biblical Text in the Light of Qumran and Masada: A Challenge for Conventional Qumran Chronology?” DSD 9 (2002): 364 – 390.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

239

Bibliography

Zahn, M. “Talking about Rewritten Texts: Some Reflections on Terminology.” In H. Hanne von Weissenberg, J. Pakkala, Juha and M. Marttila, Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, 93 – 120. BZAW 419. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Zeitlin, S. “Were there Three Torah-Scrolls in the Azarah?” JQR 56 (1966): 269 – 272.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

Index of Biblical References

Old Testament1 Genesis 1:1 151n8 1:31 139.139n12.144 2:4 160.161 3:21 139.139n11.144 4 219 4:17 219n18 4:19 219 4:20 219 4:22 219 8:17 164 8:17b 164 8:19 165 9:20 – 25 162 9:21 167 12:10 95 18:21 139.200n44 19:1 95 19:30 208 24:7 139 24:12 139n17 25:33 140 27:2 140 27:27 140 28:10 95 30:13 220n22 33:16 95 36:5 140.143n76

36:10 140 36:14 138.140.140n27 43:15 138.140 45:8 137n1.140.144 46:8 141 46:23 144 48:7 141 49 74 49:5 140n18 Exodus 1:16 143n73 12:37 94.141 14:29 98 15:1 93 15:11 97 15:18 203 15:22 98 15:25 96.99 15:27 95 15:29 98 18:1 96n7 18:20 91 19:3 138.138n9.141 21:8 158n13 22:19 206 24:5 40 25:25 208.208n6.209.210n13 26:26 141n41.141n42 26:27 138.141

1 Since LXX and Peshitta references are related to the Hebrew version, they are included in Old ˙ Testament list.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

242

Index of Biblical References

31:13 141 35:11 157n11 37:12 210n13 39:32 – 40 153 39:32 153 39:33 153.157 39:34 153 39:35 149.153 39:36 153 39:37 154.156.157 39:38 154 39:39 154 39:40 154 Leviticus 4:30 142n48 4:32 142n49 4:34 142 14:10 142 15:8 142 15:13 142n53.142n54 21:23 198 22:22 210 27 94 27:21 94 Numbers 1:46 141n35 2:2 141n35 2:33 141n35 3:12 140n18 4:3 142 4:22 96 7:84 141n35 8:16 140n18 8:19 141n35 8:22 141n35 9:18 141n35 10:35 – 36 50.97 14:7 141n35 14:10 141n35 14:15 141n32 15:8 140n18 15:21 142 15:33 141n35

18:26 20:22 25:2 27:2 28:4 31:2 31:9 31:12 33:47 36:1 36:13

143n75 140n18 141n32 143n64 96 – 97 142 141n35 138.142 95 143.143n64.144n83 141n35

Deuteronomy 1:26 139.143 1:27 143 3:6 143n72 3:20 143 4:31 208.211 9:21 200n44.203 13:17 167 17 77 17:18 66 17:19 77 22:6 143 25:5 95 27:4 60 28:7 92 28:39 198 29:22a 143 29:22b 138.143 31:9 66 31:26 66 32:26 143 33:27 40 Joshua 3:17 179n13 4 60 5 60 6:5 179n10 7:21 178n9.181n17 8 60 8:12 179n10.183.185 8:13 179n11.179n13.184.185 8:16 185

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

243

Index of Biblical References

8:30 60 8:34 192n5 15:53 179n10 24:8 178n9.181n17 Judges 1:21 179n13 4:18 162.163 5 74 6:25 178n9.181n17 8:3 179n10 8:22 179n11 10:18 141n33 11:31 178n9.181n17 13 218 13:2 218 13:17 178.178n9 13:24 220n22 18:9 179n13 Ruth 1:2 220 3:15 83n18.215n3 4:18 160.161 1 Samuel 1 218 1:1 219 1:2 219 1:17 221 1:20 220.220n22.221 1:27 221 1:28 221 2 74 2:5 218 2:7 218 2:10 217 4:15 179n13 11:7 203 14:15 141n32 15:6 179n10 16:19 – 17:37 217n13 17 217n13 17:12 219.220.220n20 17:37 – 18:14 217n13

18:25 178n9.181n17 21:14 141n32 22:8 111n20 22:13 111n20 24:21 – 25:33 217n14 25 217n14 25:2 141n32 25:27 179n12 25:33 – 26:25 217n14 2 Samuel 3:35 178n9.181n17 6:23 177.178n9.181n17 10:12 – 12:13 217n15 11 – 12 217n15 12:13 – 13:25 217n15 12:24 220 15:1 – 19:9 111 17:14 111 17:24 95 23 74 1 Kings 1:1 – 2:21 (3Reg) 102n6 1:1 – 2:11 103 1:1 104 1:2 130 1:3 104.109.110.115.123 1:8 123 1:9 123 1:12 104 1:14 123 1:15 130 1:16 104.109.123 1:17 104 1:18 112n27.115.123 1:23 105.123 1:27 104.112n27.115.123 1:28 113n29.116.130 1:33 111n22 1:34 130 1:35 105.123 1:38 111n22.123 1:42 115.116.123 1:45 123

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

244

Index of Biblical References

1:47 115.123 1:50 113n30.116.130 1:51 123 1:52 115.123 1:53 104.130 2:1 104 2:3 123 2:4 109.110.112n28.123.130 2:5 105.107.109.110.116.123 2:9 113n30.116.130 2:12 – 21:43 (3Reg) 102n6.103 2:14 118 2:16 108.118 2:23 118 2:26 118 2:28 130 2:30 118 2:38 118 3:7 118 3:9 118 3:10 118 3:12 118 3:18 118 3:26 112n26.118 4:1 118 4:3 112n26.114.118 4:5 108.118 4:7 118 4:16 107 4:36 107 5:1 107 5:2 118 5:4 118 5:7 118 5:13 107 5:14 118 5:17 112n26.114.118 5:21 108.118 5:27 118 5:28 118 6:2 118 6:3 108.112.118 6:5 112n26.114.118 6:7 112n26.119 6:8 119 6:15 119

6:16 119 6:27 119 6:34 119 6:38 119 6:7 114 7:18 112n26.114.119 7:26 210 7:29 119 7:36 119 7:37 119 7:38 119 7:40 119 7:48 119 8:1 119 8:15 119 8:26 112n26.114.119 8:29 107 8:32 119 8:36 112n26.114.119 8:38 119 8:43 112n26.114.119 8:44 112n26.114.119 8:47 119 8:48 112n26.114.119 8:58 119 8:60 119 8:65 119 9:2 119 9:4 112n26.114.119 9:5 111n22.119 9:6 112n26.114.120 9:7 120 9:11 120 9:15 120 9:18 108.120 9:23 120 9:26 112n26.114.120 10:6 120 10:8 108.120 10:9 111n21 10:14 107 10:17 120 10:22 178n9.181n17 10:25 120 10:27 107 11:9 107

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

245

Index of Biblical References

11:10 11:14 11:20 11:22 11:25 11:26 11:27 11:33 12:1 12:7 12:12 12:15 12:16 12:19 12:20 12:21 12:22 12:27 12:32 12:33 13:11 13:16 13:17 13:22 13:23 13:28 13:34 14:19 14:26 14:31 15:2 15:4 15:9 15:10 15:18 15:19 15:23 15:25 15:27 15:29 15:33 16:7 16:9 16:11 16:13 16:19

120 120 120 120 112n26.114.120 219 120 120 120 112n26.114.120 120 120 108.120 104 120 112n26.114.120 120 108.120 120 112n26.144.121 112n26.114.121 112n26.114.121 112n26.114.121 121 121 112n26.114.121 112n26.114.121 111n21 112n26.114.121 121 121 121 112n26.114.121 111n21 112n26.114.121 112n26.114.121 112n26.114.121 111n21 111n20 121 112n26.114.121 121 111n20.111n21 107 121 121

16:27 112n26.114.121 16:34 121 17:6 112n26.114.121 17:12 121 17:15 112n26.114.121 17:24 121 18:1 112n26.114.122 18:4 112n26.114.122 18:12 122 18:17 122 18:20 122 18:21 122 18:26 112n26.114.122 18:31 122 18:36 122 18:39 122 19:1 112n26.114.122 19:2 112n26.114.122 19:3 112n26.114.122 19:9 122 19:19 111n22.122 20:2 107 20:12 122 20:13 122 20:15 122 20:16 122 20:26 122 20:28 112n26.114.122 20:31 122 20:33 112n26.114.122 20:42 122 21:19 108.122 21:24 111n21.122 22 – 2 Kgs (3 – 4 Reg) 102n6 22:1 – 2 Kgs 25:30 103 22:8 188n42 22:15 130 22:17 111n22 22:18 188n42 22:20 130 22:26 130 22:27 123 22:30 113n29.116.130 22:36 123 22:38 130 22:44 130

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

246

Index of Biblical References

2 Kings 1:2 130 1:6 123 1:9 130 1:11 123 1:12 112n27.115.124 1:13 116.130 1:17 130 2:3 105 2:4 130 2:12 104 2:14 130 2:15 104.109.110.116.124 2:15b 104 2:17 109.110.116.124 2:20 105 2:21 104.109.110.116.124 2:23 106 3:3 130 3:7 104.131 3:10 131 3:11 112n27.124 3:12 124.131 3:18 104 3:24 113n29.116.131 3:25 106 3:27 109.110.116.124 4:2 104 4:5 104 4:7 131 4:10 131 4:13 104 4:16 106 4:26 104 4:35 104 4:36 106 4:39 106 5:1 106 5:7 104 5:7b 104 5:8 104 5:12 104 5:13 106.124.131 5:18 104 5:21 124 5:22 124

5:23 124 5:26 131 5:27 104 6:5 221 6:8 104 6:12 104 6:20 124.131 6:21 131 6:26 131 6:30 131 6:32 104.113n30.116.131 7:2 112n27.115.124 7:3 104.116.131 7:4 112n27.124 7:6 109.116.124 7:7 131 7:9 104.109.116.124 7:10 131 7:11 124 7:12 104.109.110.116.124 7:12b 104 7:13 124 7:19 124 8:3 111n22.131 8:5 111n22.131 8:24 104 8:29 106 9:3 111n22 9:4 112n27.115.124 9:6 111n22 9:11 112.124 9:12 111n22 9:14 110.111 9:19 112n27.115.124 9:21 131 9:25 109.112n27.115.124.131 9:27 131 9:28 113n29.116.131 9:32 104.109.116.124 9:33 113n29.116.131 10:1 116 10:2 112n27.115.125 10:4 131 10:6 104.109.110.112n28.116.125.131 10:7 112n27.115.125 10:9 111n20

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

247

Index of Biblical References

10:10 131 10:11 116 10:12 109.110.112n28.116.125 10:13 131 10:14 106.108n17.116.125 10:14b 104 10:15 111n22.112n27.113n29.115.116 .125.131 10:16 131 10:18 104.125 10:19 104.109.116 10:19b 104 10:21 125 10:23 125 10:25 109.110.116.125 10:26 112n27.116.125 10:27 106.125 10:28 104.109.125 10:29 112n27.115.125 10:31 104 10:33 104.125 11:1 112n27.115.125 11:2 132 11:7 132 11:9 106 11:10 112n27.115.125 11:13 109.125 11:15 109.125 11:18 125 11:19 104.125 12:13 125.132 12:17 125 13:3 106 13:5 106.132 13:6 116.132 13:7 132 13:21 132 13:23 125.132 14:4 132 14:6 132 14:7 125 14:10 125 14:13 104.109.110.112.112n28.116.126 .179n10.179n12.186 14:14 126 14:15 126

14:19 111n20 14:21 104.109.126 14:23 126 14:26 113n29.116.132 14:28 132 15:10 111n20.112.126 15:13 112n27.115.126.132 15:14 104.109.110.126 15:16 104.126.132 15:18 126 15:20 104 15:25 104.126 15:26 104 15:29 106.126 15:30 106.109.110. 111n20.112n28.116 .126 15:31 104 15:32 106 15:34 106.112n27.115.126 15:36 126 15:38 104. 106.109.110.126 16:6 106.112n27.115.126 16:9 104 16:10 126 16:11 106.126 16:14 126 16:15 112n27.115.126 16:16 113n29.116.132 16:17 126 16:18 132 16:19 104.109.110.112n27.112n28.126 16:19b 104 17:4 179n10 17:8 126 17:13 126.127.132 17:19 127 17:21 127 17:23 127 17:24 109.116.127 17:25 106 17:27 109.110.112n28.116.127.132 17:29 127.132 17:31 127 17:32 132 17:34 113n29.116.132 17:38 132

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

248 18:4 18:6 18:7 18:8 18:10 18:11 18:14 18:16 18:17 18:20 18:21 18:22 18:23 18:25 18:26 18:28 18:29 18:34 18:36 19:2 19:4 19:6 19:13 19:14 19:15 19:16 19:21 19:22 19:23 19:25 19:26 19:33 19:34 19:37 20:2 20:4 20:7 20:8 20:9 20:11 20:12 20:13 20:14 20:16 20:17 20:21

Index of Biblical References

127.132 127 132 112n27.115.127 112n27.127 113n29.116.132 104.109.127 104 112n27.115.127 109.127 116.132 132 132 127 127 127 127.179n10.179n12 104.109.127 106 127 127 104. 106 106 104.112n28.127.132 109.110.127 127 132 133 112n27.115.127 112n28.127.133 107 112n27.115.128 111n22 110.128 107.128 112n27.115.128 133 104 133 128 110.128 112n27.115.128 104.110.128 110.128 128 104

21:3 21:6 21:12 21:13 21:16 21:18 21:22 21:23 21:25 21:26 22:1 22:2 22:3 22:4 22:5 22:6 22:8 22:9 22:13 22:17 22:20 23:2 23:3 23:4 23:5 23:6 23:7 23:8 23:10 23:11 23:17 23:21 23:24 23:31 23:33 24:4 24:10 24:12 24:17 25:4 25:6 25:8 25:12 25:13 25:18 25:20

133 112n27.115.128 112n27.115.128 111n20 133 110.110n18.116.128 104.110.116.128 111 104.110.128 112n27.115.128 107.128 128 77n51 113n30.116.133 128 128 66.74.128 104.128.133 110.128 107.128 111n22.129 75.129.192n5 104.129 110.129.133 113n30.116.129.133 104.110.129 133 113n29.116.129.133 107.129 112n27.129 110.112n28.116.129 129 129 129 129 107.129 112n27.115.129 104.110.129 107 112n27.129 112n27.115.129 110.129 179n10.129 112n27.115.129 107 129

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

249

Index of Biblical References

25:23 25:26 25:27

112n27.115.129 129 96.112n27.115.129

Job 40:9

1 Chronicles 3:1 202 5:9 95 14:10 196 15:18 202 21:3 200n44 25:2 – 3 188n42 27:1 202 2 Chronicles 2:9 204 4:5 210 6:16 114 6:33 114 6:34 114 6:38 114 8:4 108.120 10:16 202 12:9 114 16:3 114 16:8 202 18:7 188n42 18:16 111n22 18:17 188n42 18:19 130 18:25 130 20:8 200n44 23:9 115 24:21 111n20 24:24 99n10 24:25 111n20 24:26 111n20 25:23 112.116 25:24 126 25:27 111n20 33:24 111n20 35:21 211.212.212n25 36:5 129 Ezra 6:1 66n16

Nehemiah 8:2 – 3 192n5 13:15 200n44

201

Psalms 9:18 95 44:24 200 76:5 144n81 89:7 – 9 97 89:52 201 92:3 198 94:4 201 101:7 197 106:9 97 106:22 97 108:4 201 115:5 97 149:1 93 Proverbs 1:22 201 4:4 99 6:9 201 7:3 200n44 8:21 201 Qohelet 1:4 196 7:24 202 Song of Songs 1:9 97n8 1:13 201 1:14 202 14 202 Isaiah 3:7 203 4:5 – 6 94 13:19 143n76 19:16 205 19:18 – 19 72n35

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

250 19:18 19:19 21:11 23:12 27:6 29:10 34:7 36:6 36:7 36:8 36:10 37:4 37:14 37:15 37:22 37:24 37:26 37:27 37:34 38:2 38:12 38:14 39:2 39:3 39:5 40:2 42:10 45:17 53:8 57:10 66:20

Index of Biblical References

72.75.76.76n47 72 144 179n10.179n12 178n9.181n17 75 144 116.132 132 132 127 203 127 109.127 132 115 133 107 115.128 128 142n57 179n10.179n12.183 115.128 128 110.128 74 93 93 142n57 179n10 204

Jeremiah 6:6 176.178n9.181n17 6:13 75 7:11 209 8:4 178n9.181n17 8:7 184 9:21 179n10 14:18 75 14:19 187n40 17:4 178n9 17:25 205 18:18 75 22:14 178n9.181n17

22:16 179n10 25:13 188n42 25:24 107 25:30 188n43 26:11 – 12 188n43 26:20 188n42 26:24 179n10 28:8 188n43 28:17 179n10 29:7 179n10 29:22 179n11.179n13.182 30:6 93 32:11 178n9.181n17 32:12 179n11 32:34 178n9.181n17 33:3 176.179n10.179n12.185 36:23 179n10.179n12.181.182n20 36:24 182n20 37:19 178n9.181n17 40:7 115.129 41:8 129 45:1 178n9.181n17 45:4 179n12.186 48:6 186 48:31 179n11 48:41 176.179n13.183 49:12 179n10 49:18 143n76 49:19 179n10 50:29 205 50:40 143n76 51:29 179n13.183 51:59 178n9.181n17 52 115.129 52:24 107 52:31 115 Lamentations 1:16 202 2:1 201 2:7 201 Ezekiel 1:13 178n9.181n17 3:2 196

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

251

Index of Biblical References

4:7 188n42 5:11 179n13.187.189 6:2 188n43 8:3 95 9:8 178n9.181n17 11:4 188n42 11:7 179n10 13:2 179n13.188.188n41.188n43 13:16 188n43 13:17 179n13.188.188n41.188n42 14:17 179n10.179n11.182n22 16:29 178n9.181n17 16:45 187n40 16:46 179n10 16:48 179n10 17:7 181n17 17:11 178n9 17:14 177.178n9.181n17 18:2 179n10.182n23 18:20 178n9.181.181n17 20:25 192n6 21:2 188n43 21:7 188n43 21:19 179n10 22:4 179n13.188 22:13 178n9.181n17.188n41 23:19 178n9.181n17 23:46 178n9.181n17 25:2 188n42 26:17 179n10 28:21 188n42 29:2 188n42 30:18 178n9.179n10.181n17 32:16 179n10 32:26 179n13 33:1 197 33:25 204 34:2 188n42.188n43 34:30 198 35:2 188n42 35:12 204 36:1 188n43 36:5 178n9.181n17 36:6 188n42 37:4 188n42 37:9 188n43

37:12 38:2 39:1 40:2 40:3 40:5 40:25 40:43 42:8 43:2 43:13 43:26 44:3 45:1 46:6 46:8 46:21 48:1 48:28

188n43 188n42 188n42 179n10 179n10 210n13 179n10 210n13 179n10.188.188n41 144n81 210n13 178n9.181n17 179n10 205 178n9.181n17 179n10 178n9.181n17 205 179n10

Hosea 2:16 199 4:12 179n10 10:11 178n9.181n17 13:9 179n10 14:5 179n10 Joel 1:12 179n10.179n12.183n24 2:22 178n9.181n17 4:7 178n9.181n17 Amos 4:11 143n76 7:15 188n43 7:16 188n42 9:7 179n11.179n13.183 Micah 4:11 199 5:1 178n9.181n17 6:5 179n11.185 Nahum 2:12 178n9.181n17

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

252

Index of Biblical References

3:8 178n9.181n17 3:11 179n10 Habakkuk 3:19 178n9.181n17 Zephaniah 2:7 179n10 3:7 179n12 3:11 178n9.181n17 3:15 204 Zechariah 1:13 199 4:10 179n10 13:7 179n12 Malachi 3:22 179n10.188.188n41 New Testament

Matthew 20:18 75 21:15 75 Mark 10:33

75

Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha 1 Esdras 6:22 66n16

28n37

Sirach Prologue

21 – 22

30

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QIsaa 51.57.58.72.138n6 1QIsab 42.42n25.57.58.72 1QM 2:1 73 1QM 2:1 – 3 66 2Q2 Exoda 141 2Q6 Numa 142 4Q1 Gen–Exoda 140 4Q6 Genf 141.141n36 4QpaleoExodm 77 4QJosha 45.60 4QMMT 171.173.174 4QSama 77.77n54 4Qpap paraKings (4Q382) 111 4QJera 64.71.76 4QJerb,d 45 4Q22 paleoExodm 141 4Q23 Lev–Numa 140n18.142 4Q27 Numb 143n64.143n75 4Q31 Deutd 143 5QDeut 41 5/6.HevPs 43n32 8.HevXII gr 41 MasLevb 43n32 MasPsa 43n32 MurIsa 42.42n25 MurXII 42n29.43n32 Rabbinic works Mishnah Abot 5:1 28

1 Maccabees 1:56 – 58 41 14:49 66n16

Erubin 5:9 209n10 10:13 210.210n16

˘

Letter of Aristeas § 30 70 § 46 70

˘

Jubilees 12:25 – 27

2 Maccabees 2:14 – 15 41

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

253

Index of Biblical References

Ta anit 2:10 212

Middot 1:4 69

Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 4:1 7d 209

Nazir 9:2 209n10 Qiddushin 1:1 91 Sanhedrin 10:6 167

Sheqalim 4:3 48a 70n24 Ta anit 4:2 68a

22.39.40

Babylonian Talmud Abodah Zarah 24b 94n6 Arakhin 2b 94n6

˘

Tamid 5:3 69

Sanhedrin 10:2 29b 157n11

˘

Sotah ˙ 7:7 68 7:8 68 9:15 75n43

Megillah 4:1 74d 26

˘

Sheqalim 5:1 69

˘

Makhshirin 4:5 209n10

Yadayim 3:5 41.97

Gittin ˙˙ 60b 193

Yebamot 16:4 209n10

Ketubbot 106a 23.54.70n24

Yoma 7:1 68.69.192n5

Hullin ˙ 137b 28n40

Zabim 2:2 92

Makkot 11a 211n21

Tosefta Berakhot 28a 209

Megillah 29b 27 32a 192n6

Megillah 3:41 177

Menahot ˙ 93a 94n6 109b 72n35

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

254

Index of Biblical References

Pesahim ˙ 112a 42

Wayassa 1

96.99

Midrash to Psalms 9:18 95

Qiddushin 2a–b 91 2b 94.100

Numbers Rabbah 11:3 22 Pesiqta Rabbati 14 94n6

Yebamot 13b 95

Qohelet Rabbah 7:27 94n6

Zebahim ˙ 43b 94n6

Sifra Beh. uqqotai Pereq 11:1

Other Rabbinic Works Abot de Rabbi Nathan 4:7 – 8 24

Sifre Deuteronomy 95 167

˘

Temurah 2b 94n6 17b 94n6

94

Sopherim 4:23 212n25 6:4 40

Bereshit Rabbati Gen 45:8 137n1 Genesis Rabbah 1:1 156 1:10 151n8 9:5 22 12:6 160 18:4 28 34:8 164.165.166 36:4 162.164n32.167 68:8 95 86:2 95

Song Rabbah 1:5,3 94n6 Targumic Texts Samaritan Targum Genesis 11:30 177

Mekhilta Amaleq 1 99n10 Amaleq 3 96n7 Beshallah 7 97n8.98 ˙ Pisha 14 94 ˙ Shirata 1 93.93n5 Shirata 8 97

Targum Jonathan Joshua 3:17 179n13 6:5 179n10 7:21 178n9.181n17 8:12 179n10.183.185 8:13 179n11.179n13.184

˘ ˘

Leviticus Rabbah 23:10 162

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Exodus 15:22 99 15:24 98

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

255

Index of Biblical References

15:53 179n10 24:8 178n9.181n17 Judges 1:21 179n13 5:9 74 6:25 178n9.181n17 8:3 179n10 8:22 179n11 11:31 178n9.181n17 13:17 178.178n9 18:9 179n13 1 Samuel 2:5b 74n42 2:31 187n38 4:15 179n13 15:6 179n10 18:25 178n9.181n17 25:27 179n12 2 Samuel 3:35 178n9.181n17 6:23 177.178n9.181n17 1 Kings 10:22 178n9.181n17 2 Kings 14:13 179n10.179n12.186 17:4 179n10 18:29 179n10.179n12 25:12 179n10 2 Chronicles 35:22 212n25 Isaiah 1:24 73n37 8:2 73.74 10:33 187n38 15:2 187n39 18:4 74 19:18 73 21:11 74

22:25 187n38 23:12 179n10.179n12 25:2 73n37 27:6 178n9.181n17 29:1 – 2 73 29:10 74.75 32:14 73 38:14 179n10.179n12.183 40:1 74 53:5 76 54:1 74 57:4 177 57:10 179n10 62:12 74 Jeremiah 1:1 68.73.75 6:6 176.178n9.181n17 8:4 178n9.181n17 8:7 184 9:21 179n10 14:19 187n40 17:4 178n9 22:14 178n8.178n9.181n17 22:16 179n10 26:2 187n39 26:3 186n31 26:24 179n10 27:3 186n31 28:17 179n10 29:7 179n10 29:22 179n11.179n13.182 32:11 178n9.181n17 32:12 179n11 32:34 178n9.181n17 33:3 176.179n10.179n12.185 36:23 179n10.179n12.181.182n20 36:24 182n20 37:19 178n9.181n17 43:13 73n38 45:1 178n9.181n17 45:4 179n12.186 48:6 186 48:25 187n38 48:31 179n11

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

256

Index of Biblical References

48:37 187n39 48:41 176.179n13.183 49:12 179n10 49:19 179n10 50:23 187n38 51:29 179n13.183 51:59 178n9.181n17 Ezekiel 1:13 178n9.181n17 5:11 179n13.187.189 6:6 187n38 9:8 178n9.181n17 11:7 179n10 13:2 179n13.188 13:17 179n13.188 14:17 179n10.179n11.182n22 16:27 187n39 16:29 178n9.181n17 16:45 187n40 16:46 179n10 16:48 179n10 17:7 181n17 17:11 178n9 17:14 177.178n9.181n17 18:2 179n10.182n23 18:20 178n9.181.181n17 21:19 179n10 22:4 179n13.188 22:13 178n9.181n17 23:19 178n9.181n17 23:46 178n9.181n17 26:17 179n10 30:18 178n9.179n10.181n17 32:16 179n10 32:26 179n13 36:5 178n9.181n17 40:2 179n10 40:3 179n10 40:25 179n10 42:8 179n10.188 43:26 178n9.181n17 44:3 179n10 46:6 178n9.181n17 46:8 179n10

46:21 48:28

178n9.181n17 179n10

Hosea 4:12 179n10 10:11 178n9.181n17 13:9 179n10 14:5 179n10 Joel 1:12 179n10.179n12.183n24 2:22 178n9.181n17 4:7 178n9.181n17 Amos 3:14 187n38 9:7 179n11.179n13.183 Micah 5:1 178n9.181n17 6:5 179n11.185 7:8 – 11 74n42 Nahum 2:12 178n9.181n17 3:8 178n9.181n17 3:11 179n10 Habakkuk 3:17 74n42 3:19 178n9.181n17 Zephaniah 2:7 179n10 3:7 179n12 3:11 178n9.181n17 Zechariah 4:10 179n10 11:13 67 13:7 179n12 Malachi 3:22 179n10.188

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

257

Index of Biblical References

Targum Neofiti Exodus 15:22 99 15:24 98 Fragmentary targumim Exodus 15:22 99 15:24 98 Josephus Antiquities 1.12 67n18 1.17 67n18 4.304 66 10.57 66n16 10.58 66n16 13.408 – 409 78n57 13.68 72

Against Apion 1.28 67 1.29 66.69 1.38 67 1.39 67 1.39 – 40 67 1.42 64n4.69 War 1.31 – 33 76n48 6.390 69 7.5.5 137 7.421 72 7.421 ff. 76n48 7.427 73n37 7.433 – 436 72 Patristic Sources Didache 13:3 75

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

List of Contributors / Editors

Dr. Lea Himmelfarb Lea Himmelfarb is a professor of the Bible Department of Bar Ilan University in Israel. Her fields of teaching and research include: Accentuation of the O.T. (Ta‘amei Ha-Miqra); Massorah; Jewish Biblical exegesis and Biblical historiography. She has published many papers on issues related to those subjects and lectured in a lot of international conferences Dr. Nathan R. Jastram Nathan Jastram studied Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University and produced the editio princeps of 4Q27 Numb for his dissertation. He is currently Professor of Theology and Chair of the Department of Theology and Philosophy at Concordia University Wisconsin. He has published articles on the Dead Sea Scrolls and on theological topics related to the Hebrew Bible. Prof. Arie van der Kooij Arie van der Kooij has studied Theology at Utrecht University, The Netherlands (Ph.D. 1978). He has been Professor of Old Testament Studies at Leiden University from 1989 till 2010, and is currently Professor Emeritus at this University. He has published monographs and articles on the ancient versions of the Old Testament, in particular the Septuagint, including The Oracle of Tyre. The Septuagint of Isaiah 23 as Version and Vision, Leiden 1998. Prof. David Marcus David Marcus did his undergraduate work at Trinity College, Dublin and Cambridge University in England and received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in New York. He is currently Professor of Bible and Masorah at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. He is the author of numerous scholarly articles and books on the Bible, the Ancient Near East, and Masorah. He is part of a team involved in the production of a new critical Hebrew Bible (BHQ) being

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

260

List of Contributors / Editors

produced by the German Bible Society. His latest book is Scribal Wit: Aramaic Mnemonics in the Leningrad Codex (Gorgias Press, 2013). Dr. Elvira Mart†n-Contreras (Masorah and Biblical Studies) Elvira Mart†n-Contreras studied Semitic Philology (option Hebrew and Aramic) at the Complutense University of Madrid (Spain) and completed her formation at the Universities of Jerusalem, Vienna, Cambridge and Manchester. She is currently Tenured Research Fellow at the Department of Jewish and Islamic Studies of Institute of Languages and Cultures of the Mediterranean and the Near East at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). She has published monographs and many articles on Rabbinic exegesis and Masorah, including Masora. La transmisiûn de la Tradiciûn de la Biblia Hebrea. Navarra 2010. Dr. Lorena Miralles-Maci‚ Lorena Miralles-Maci‚ is a research fellow (“Ramûn y Cajal” Spanish Programme) at the Department of Semitic Studies of the University of Granada, Spain. She has held fellowships from diverse institutions and programmes at the Spanish Biblical and Archaeological Institute (Jerusalem), Institut für Judaistik (University of Vienna), Hochschüle für Jüdische Studien (University of Heidelberg) and Institut für Judaistik (Free University of Berlin). She has published on topics related to biblical and midrashic literatures. Her last academic contribution is “Judaizing a Gentile Biblical Character through Fictive Biographical Reports: The Case of Bityah, Pharaoh’s Daughter, Moses’ Mother, according to Rabbinic Interpretations” (in C. Cordoni and G. Langer [eds.], Narratology, Hermeneutics, and Midrash [Vienna: V& R, 2014] 145 – 175). Prof. Yosef Ofer (Masorah and Biblical exegesis) Yosef Ofer studied Biblical Studies and Hebrew Language Studies in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and wrote his Ph.D. Thesis on the Babylonian Masorah. He is Chair of the Bible Department of Bar Ilan University in Israel and a member of the Academy of the Hebrew Language in Jerusalem. He has published many articles on the Aleppo Codex, the masorah and the exegesis of the Bible, including Nahmanides’ Torah Commentary Addenda Written in the Land of Israel, Jerusalem 2013 (with Y. Jacobs). Prof. Alexander Samely Alex Samely read Philosophy, Jewish Studies and Graeco-Roman History at Frankfurt and Oxford Universities. After working on Spinoza and completing a DPhil on Aramaic Targums, his research interests turned to midrashic hermeneutics and the use of Scripture in the Mishnah. More recently he has worked on rabbinic discourse and the literary structures of ancient Jewish texts more ge-

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

List of Contributors / Editors

261

nerally (Forms of Rabbinic Literature and Thought, OUP 2007; Profiling Jewish Literature in Antiquity, OUP 2013, with P. Alexander, R. Bernasconi and R. Hayward). He is currently exploring ways to apply the new methodology for literary description introduced in the 2013 book to other texts, including the Hebrew Bible. His philosophical interests include Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Levinas and the phenomenology of reading. He is Professor of Jewish Thought at the University of Manchester (England), and teaches courses on Rabbinics, modern Jewish Philosophy and methodology in the humanities. Dr. John Van Seters (Biblical and Religious Studies) John Van Seters did his undergraduate studies in Near Eastern studies and Classics (Hebrew and Greek) at the University of Toronto, his theological studies at Princeton Theological Seminary and doctoral studies in Near Eastern Studies at Yale University. His major academic appointments were in Near Eastern Studies (Biblical Studies) at the University of Toronto (1970 – 77), and as James A. Gray Professor of Biblical Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (1977 – 2000). His primary field of expertise was in the Pentateuch and historical books of the Hebrew Bible. In 2000 he retired as Distinguished University Professor Emeritus in the Humanities. Among his many publications, and the most relevant for this seminar, is The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism, Winona Lake, IN. 2006. Prof. Dr. Günter Stemberger Günter Stemberger, Emeritus professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Vienna where he has been teaching from 1973 to 2009. His teaching and research concentrated on Jewish history, religion and literature in the Talmudic period. He has published many books and articles, including Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, Edinburgh 1996; Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch, Munich 9 2011, is its most recent fully revised German edition. Dr. Willem F. Smelik (University College London) Willem Smelik is senior lecturer in Hebrew and Aramaic at the department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, UCL, and chief editor of the journal *Aramaic Studies*. He has held fellowships from the Theologische Universiteit Kampen (Netherlands), the Lady Davis foundation (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), the Yad Hanadiv/Beracha Foundation and the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies (UK). He has published on Hebrew Bible, Aramaic dialects, Aramaic scriptural translations and early rabbinic literature. His latest book is *Rabbis, Language and Translation in Late Antiquity* (Cambridge 2013).

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640

262

List of Contributors / Editors

Prof. Emanuel Tov (Biblical Studies) Emanuel Tov studied Hebrew Bible and Greek literature at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Harvard University and Oxford University and submitted his Ph.D. to the Hebrew University. He is currently the J.L. Magnes Professor of Bible emeritus at the Hebrew University. He has published monographic studies on the textual criticism of the Hebrew and Greek Bible and Qumran, among which two handbooks on textual criticism (1997, 2012). Prof. Pablo A. Torijano Pablo A. Torijano (Ph. D., NYU) is Associate Professor at the Department of Hebrew and Aramaic Studies of the Universidad Complutense. He has published on Judaism of Late Antiquity (Solomon the Esoteric King, Brill 2002) and on LXX and Biblical Textual Criticism (Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebole Barrera. Florilegium Complutense, Brill 2012; Coedited with Andr¦s Piquer). He is preparing now together with Julio Trebolle the Critical Edition of III – IV Regnorum for the Göttingen Septuaginta Unternehmen. Prof. Julio Trebolle Emeritus Professor of the Department of Hebrew and Aramaic Studies of the Complutensian University of Madrid. Doctor in Semitic Philology (Complutensian University) and Theology (Pontifical University of Salamanca); ÊlÀve diplom¦ de l’Êcole Biblique et Arch¦ologique FranÅaise of Jerusalem. He continued his studies at the University of Münster. Visiting Professor Cambridge University (Oriental Studies and Divinity) and Senior Fellowship Leuven University (Faculty of Theology). Author of The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible. An Introduction to the History of the Bible, Solomon and Jeroboam, Jehu and Joash, Centena in libros Samuelis et Regum and other books and articles on the Septuagint, Qumran and textual and literary criticism of the historical books.

© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525550649 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647550640